BT  21  * S44  1911 
Selbie,  William  Boothby, 
1862- 

Evangelical  Christianity 


THE  HISTORY  AND  WITNESS  OF 
EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

ITS  HISTORY  AND  WITNESS 


PRINCIPAL  OF  MANSFIELD  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 
AUTHOR  OF  “ASPECTS  OF  CHRIST”  ETC. 


HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 


NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/evangelicalchrisOOselb 


INTRODUCTION 


The  genesis  and  purpose  of  the  lectures  in  this 
volume  will  be  found  explained  in  the  following 
statement,  which  was  issued  in  the  first  instance 
to  the  lecturers  themselves,  and  afterwards  to 
those  who  were  invited  to  hear  the  lectures 
delivered : — 

“As  sequel  to  a  lecture  on  “The  Positive  Pro¬ 
testant  Idea  of  Church  and  Ministry  as  rooted  in 
Early  Christianity,”  delivered  last  November  in 
Mansfield  College,  a  series  of  lectures  will  be  given 
on  the  4  4  Evangelical  ”  idea  of  Christianity  as  un¬ 
folded  in  modern  times  in  the  history  and  present 
influence  of  various  communions,  differing  in 
organisation  but  agreeing  in  their  essential  view 
of  the  Gospel  and  Church  of  Christy  By  44  Evan¬ 
gelical  ”  is  here  meant  that  type  of  Christian  life 
and  truth  which  regards  as  primary  and  determin¬ 
ative,  alike  for  the  individual  and  for  the  Church, 
living  faith  in  Christ  as  all-sufficient  mediator  of 
God’s  grace.  That  is,  its  emphasis  falls  upon  the 
experimental  and  personal  rather  than  the  sacra¬ 
mental  and  institutional  aspects  of  Christianity. 

.  “  The  series  will,  it  is  hoped,  furnish  at  once  proofs 


V 


VI 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  spiritual  unity  amid  formal  variety  and  an 
impressive  appeal  to  history  and  experience  as 
authenticating  “Evangelical  ”  religion.  The  sphere 
of  this  appeal  will  be  the  English-speaking  peoples, 
as  affording  a  fairly  homogeneous  field  of  study. 
Further,  as  regards  the  various  species  of  Church 
life  dealt  with,  the  aim  will  be  to  bring  out  the 
contribution  of  each  to  the  common  religious  and 
moral  life  of  the  several  national  units,  and  of  the 
larger  whole  which  they  jointly  constitute.  For 
this  purpose  it  has  been  decided  to  include  all  the 
typical  historic  communions  in  which  the  “  Evan¬ 
gelical  ”  spirit  has  embodied  itself,  and  to  treat 
these  as  far  as  possible  in  the  order  of  their 
emergence  in  our  national  history. 

“  The  standpoint  of  the  series  is  essentially  positive 
and  fraternal.  But  it  should  be  easily  understood 
that  the  various  lecturers  are  not  to  be  thought  to 
approve  all  that  is  distinctive  of  any  one  communion 
whose  providential  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  Church  of  Christ  is  yet  gratefully  recognised 
by  those  responsible  for  organising  the  lectures. 
Thus,  for  instance,  they  are  not  to  be  thought  to 
regard  as  among  things  indifferent  in  themselves, 
still  less  in  relation  to  the  prospects  of  closer  union 
among  Christians,  the  special  sacramental  views  or 
usages  either  of  the  Baptists  or  the  Society  of 
Friends.  The  latter  may,  indeed,  by  their  spiritual 
record  and  witness  be  a  standing  object-lesson  in 
the  truth  of  the  “  Evangelical  ”  theory  of  sacra- 


INTRODUCTION 


Vll 


mental  grace,  as  being  secondary  to  that  conveyed 
through  the  Word  of  faith.  Yet  while  l^his  con¬ 
sideration  goes  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  it  does 
not  cover  all  that  bears  on  the  being  and  well-being 
of  the  visible  Body  of  Christ. 

“  More  and  more  it  is  felt  among  Churchmen  of  all 
types  that  no  one  existing  order  of  ecclesiastical 
polity  is  complete  in  itself,  and  that  the  only  hope 
of  attaining  the  fulness  of  Christian  life  lies  in  a 
candid  and  sympathetic  recognition  of  the  positive 
truth  committed  to  all  the  living  communions  of 
Christ’s  people.  As  a  step  to  this  end,  this  series 
of  lectures  is  designed  ;  and  it  is  hoped  that  even 
those  who  belong  to  the  opposite  tradition  to  that 
termed  “  Evangelical  ”  may  recognise  some  value 
in  it,  at  least  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  better 
mutual  understanding  through  which  alone  reunion 
can  ever  be  realised.  Accordingly,  the  presence  of 
“  Catholics,”  no  less  than  “  Evangelicals  ” — to  use 
for  convenience  terms  which  neither  can  wholly 
concede  to  the  other  save  in  a  technical  sense — will 
be  heartily  welcomed  at  these  lectures.” 

This  statement  speaks  for  itself.  But  it  may 
not  be  out  of  place  here  to  indicate  somewhat  more 
in  detail  how  far  the  lectures  may  be  regarded  as 
having  fulfilled  the  hopes  of  their  promoters,  and  the 
contribution  they  make  towards  the  great  question 
of  Christian  reunion.  It  is  the  growing  importance 
of  this  question  which  led  to  their  inception.  In 
Oxford,  as  in  other  places,  there  are  many  Christian 


Vlll 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


people  who  regard  the  divisions  of  the  Church  with 
indifference,  or  who  are  quite  hopeless  as  to  the 
possibility  of  bringing  about  a  better  state  of  things. 
There  are  others,  however,  who  are  painfully  alive 
to  the  shame  and  mischief  of  the  present  situation, 
and  who  see  clearly  that  the  Church  of  Christ  must 
achieve  some  kind  of  unity  amid  diversity  if  she  is 
ever  to  do  her  proper  work,  or  meet  the  needs  of 
the  present  age.  They  understand  also  that  while 
the  exigencies  of  modern  life  and  thought  are  giving 
a  new  urgency  to  the  problem,  they  are  also  pro¬ 
viding  certain  elements  necessary  to  its  solution. 
Historical  research  is  making  it  less  and  less  pos¬ 
sible  for  men  to  assume  a  tone  of  dogmatic  assurance 
in  regard  to  forms  of  Church  government,  and  is 
providing  an  atmosphere  in  which  those  who  differ 
on  things  ecclesiastical  may  find  it  more  possible 
to  understand  one  another. 

The  careful  and  sympathetic  study  of  Church 
history  shows  how  varieties  in  ecclesiastical  form 
and  doctrinal  belief  arose,  not  from  superfluity 
of  naughtiness  and  mere  love  of  division,  but  from 
the  conscientious  convictions  of  good  men  under 
the  stress  of  changes  in  time  and  circumstance. 
It  shows,  too,  how  many  of  the  positions  thus 
reached  became  themselves  untenable  and  ceased 
to  be.  Others  of  them,  however,  had  within  them 
the  elements  of  a  more  enduring  life,  and  appealed 
to  men  and  women  in  such  a  way  as  to  become 
permanent  vehicles  of  religious  experience.  Having 


INTRODUCTION 


IX 


stood  such  a  test,  and  possessing  such  a  justification, 
they  cannot  be  regarded  as  altogether  outside  the 
Providence  and  purpose  of  God.  The  narrowest 
judgment  will  suffer  them  all  to  grow  together 
until  the  harvest,  while  a  more  sympathetic  view 
will  see  in  them  the  appointed  means  of  meeting 
and  satisfying  the  varied  spiritual  needs  of  men. 
For  while  men  differ  as  they  do  in  mental  outlook 
and  spiritual  development,  it  will  be  quite  impos¬ 
sible  to  secure  a  dead  uniformity  of  religious  wor¬ 
ship  or  belief.  It  is  possible  even  to  make  out  a 
good  case  for  our  divisions,  as  having  contributed 
effectively  to  the  life  and  progress  of  the  Christian 
Church.  And  they  may  still  be  made  to  do  so,  if 
it  can  be  shown  that  they  do  not  necessarily  inter¬ 
fere  with  the  real  spiritual  unity  of  Christendom. 
The  only  unity  worth  aiming  at  is  one  amid  and 
compatible  with  diversity — a  unity  of  faith,  senti¬ 
ment,  experience, and  devotion  which  shall  be  allowed 
to  express  itself  in  forms  and  organisations  suited 
to  varying  degrees  of  temperament,  mental  culture, 
and  spiritual  progress.  Under  existing  ecclesi¬ 
astical  conditions  in  the  English-speaking  world 
such  a  unity  may  be  difficult  of  attainment,  but 
ought  not  to  be  impossible.  In  many  parts  of  the 
Mission  field  it  exists  already,  and  has  resulted 
in  fruitful  co-operation.  It  only  needs  a  better 
understanding  of  the  causes  and  meaning  of  our 
differences,  and  a  spirit  of  charity  which  is  content 
to  put  first  things  first  and  all  other  things  in  their 


X 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


proper  places,  to  become  more  widespread  and 
effective  at  home. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  the  times  seem  to  be  ripe 
for  a  better  spirit  among  the  Churches.  They 
need  to  stand  together,  both  for  the  defence  and 
propagation  of  the  Gospel.  The  world  outside 
cannot  understand  their  divisions,  and  will  never 
take  their  efforts  seriously,  unless  they  can  show  that 
they  are  really  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  While  this  is 
no  reason  for  abandoning  positions  conscientiously 
held,  it  is  a  reason  for  seeking  better  relations  with 
those  who  are  all  aiming  at  the  same  goal,  but 
seeking  to  reach  it  by  different  roads.  It  is  in  the 
earnest  hope  that  it  may  serve  as  a  contribution 
to  this  desired  end  that  the  present  volume  is  issued. 

W.  B.  SELBIE. 

Mansfield  College, 

Oxford,  May  1911. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction  .  .  .  .  v 


I 

The  Protestant  Idea  of  Church  and  Ministry 

AS  ROOTED  IN  EARLY  CHRISTIANITY.  By 

Professor  J.  Yernon  Bartlet,  D.D.,  Mans¬ 
field  College,  Oxford  .  .  1 

II 

The  Church  of  England.  By  Eev.  A.  J. 
Carlyle,  D.Litt.,  University  College, 
Oxford  .  .  .  .  .37 


III 

The  Presbyterian  Churches.  By  Rev.  Pro¬ 
fessor  John  Oman,  D.D.,  Westminster 
College,  Cambridge  .  .  .55 


XI 


Xll 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


IV 

PAGH 

The  Congregational  Churches.  By  Key.  F.  J. 

Powicke,  Ph.D.,  of  Hatherlow  .  .81 


V 

The  Baptist  Churches.  By  Eev.  Newton  H. 

Marshall,  Ph.D.,  of  Hampstead  .  .  131 


VI 


The  Society  of  Friends.  By  Edward  Grubb, 

M.A.  ...... 


169 


VII 

The  Methodist  Churches.  By  Professor 
A.  S.  Peake,  D.D.,  University  of  Man- 

209 


CHESTER 


THE  PROTESTANT  IDEA  OF  CHURCH  AND 
MINISTRY  AS  ROOTED  IN  EARLY 
CHRISTIANITY 

BY 

J.  VERNON  BARTLET,  D.D. 


I 


1.  The  Protestant  idea  seen  in  its  emphasis. 

Like  emphasis  marks  Early  Christianity. 

(a)  Christ’s  own  teaching  as  to  the  Church  and  the 

Apostolate  :  official  authority  and  its  delegation 
foreign  thereto. 

(b)  The  evidence  of  Acts :  apostolic  leadership,  no 

“  apostolic  succession  ”  in  office  or  grace. 

(c)  The  Pauline  Epistles :  the  basis  of  ministry, 

charismata,  or  functions  of  the  Spirit  in  Christ’s 
members,  at  first  tacitly  recognised  and  yielded  to  ; 
later,  the  exercise  of  the  more  practical  or  less 
“  prophetic  ”  gifts  formally  sanctioned  by  Church 
action,  in  appointment  or  ordination,  through  the 
medium  of  missionary  or  local  leaders :  this  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  Didache.  No  “  monarchical  episco¬ 
pate  ”  in  the  New  Testament. 

( d )  The  nature  of  the  Church’s  unity  independent  of 

uniform  or  unified  organisation :  its  local  units 
self-governing  as  churches,  under  Christ’s  Headship, 
through  the  Spirit :  the  priesthood  of  Christians 
and  the  ministry  representative  of  this  :  Evangelic 
“  authority  ”  and  “  order.” 

(c)  Emergence  of  “  monarchical  episcopate  ”  in  the 
single  church  pastor,  at  various  dates  from  the 
end  of  the  first  century :  its  nature,  as  distinct 
from  “  the  historic  episcopate  ”  of  Catholicism. 

(/)  Change  in  spirit  about  200  a.d.,  due  to  extra- 
evangelic  factors. 

2.  The  Protestant  idea  of  the  Church  suits  its  place  in  the 

earliest  Creed  as  an  object  of  faith :  the  testimonium 
Spiritus  sancti  needful  to  it,  as  to  other  religious  ideas. 

3.  The  witness  of  modern  experience,  especially  on  the  Mission 

Field,  to  the  above  ideas  of  Church  and  Ministry. 


THE  PROTESTANT  IDEA  OF  CHURCH  AND  ‘ 
MINISTRY  AS  ROOTED  IN  EARLY 
CHRISTIANITY 1 

The  Protestant  idea  of  the  Church  and  its  Ministry, 
in  its  essence  and  spirit  rather  than  as  seen  in  any 
one  of  the  Confessions  in  which  it  has  been  embodied 
—-from  the  Anglican  Articles,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
the  Westminster  or  the  Savoy  Confession  on  the 
other — shows  itself  most  clearly  by  special  emphasis 
on  certain  aspects  of  Christian  faith  and  life.  As 
regards  the  Church,  the  emphasis  does  not  really 
fall  on  its  invisible  rather  than  visible  aspect  (an 
antithesis  due  partly  to  temporary  controversial 
conditions,  partly  also  to  the  Augustinian  doctrine 
of  Predestination  as  revived  by  Calvin),  but  on 
the  real  rather  than  the  seeming  Church.  To  this 
idea  of  the  Church,  as  a  spiritual  or  ideal  reality 
by  no  means  adequately  represented  by  its  outward 
manifestations,  answers  an  emphasis  on  grace  in 
actual  Christian  experience,  however  mediated. 
Grace  comes  through  the  Gospel  as  written  in  the 
Bible,  preached  in  faith,  and  visible  in  Christian 

1  A  public  lecture  delivered  in  Mansfield  College,  on  the  evening 
of  November  28,  1910. 


3 


4 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


lives,  rather  than  through  special  Sacraments  or 
orders.  Accordingly  the  Protestant  idea  of  the 
Ministry,  while  far  from  indifferent  to  order,  is 
opposed  to  the  emphasis  on  particular  “  orders,” 
and  tends  to  lay  its  stress  rather  on  manifest  God- 
given  “  gift  ”  as  essential.  It  will  be  the  aim  of 
this  lecture  to  justify  from  early  Christian  history 
the  justice  of  the  Protestant  emphasis  in  these 
matters,  and  to  apply  its  principles  to  modern 
)  conditions. 

We  must  begin  with  Christ’s  own  teaching  as  to 
His  Church  found  in  Matt.  xvi.  17  f.  Read  in  their 
true  setting,  namely,  the  conditions  present  to  the 
minds  of  the  disciples,  and  not  those  of  any  later 
age,  Jesus’  words  can  surely  have  but  one  primary 
meaning.  At  a  most  critical  stage  in  His  ministry 
and  in  the  training  of  the  inner  circle  of  His  disciples, 
Jesus  has  just  elicited  from  Peter,  their  representa¬ 
tive  spokesman,  the  confession  that,  in  spite  of  all 
that  seemed  to  belie  it,  He  is  indeed  the  Christ, 
the  Anointed  Head  of  the  coming  Kingdom  of  God. 
The  solemn  joy  with  which  Jesus  greets  such  a  faith 
as  the  result  of  direct  Divine  revelation,  shows  how 
fundamental  in  relation  to  the  Kingdom  of  God 
was  the  conviction  which  it  embodied.  Fitly, 
indeed,  was  he  named  Rock-man  (Petros)  in  whose 
soul  this  conviction  had  established  itself  ;  for  this 
was  the  rock-faith  which  should  be  the  basis  of 
stability,  not  only  for  him  (whose  character  so  much 
needed  a  grounding  in  something  other  than  his 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  5 


own  native  strength  of  feeling),  but  also  for  the 
whole  society  of  like-minded  disciples  which  it  was 
Jesus’  prime  concern  to  create.  It  was  in  such  a 
“  Church,”  or  Messianic  congregation,  looking  to 
Him  as  its  Head,  even  though  Israel  as  a  nation 
failed  to  recognise  in  Him  their  Messiah,  that  Jesus 
saw  the  realisation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  to  be 
implicit.  It  was  to  embody  His  Spirit,  and,  as  He 
goes  on  immediately  to  declare,  was  to  have  one 
law  of  life  with  Himself,  its  Head,  even  that  of  life 
through  death.  All  that  was  to  be  distinctive  of 
it,  the  new  Israel,  as  compared  with  the  old,  was  in 
Himself.  Hence  He,  as  appropriated  by  the  soul’s 
inmost  faith,  was  in  fact  the  Rock  on  which  all 
was  to  be  built,  both  for  the  Church  as  a  whole 
and  for  its  constituent  members.  Of  these  Peter, 
the  first  to  build  his  faith  confessedly  on  the  true 
Rock  or  foundation  (cf.  1  Cor.  iii.  11),  was  the 
primary  type  ;  and  in  virtue  of  his  special  personal 
relation  to  the  Head  of  the  Church,  in  and  through 
which  the  Kingdom  was  to  come,  he  was  to  have  a 
decisive  part  in  defining  the  conditions  under  which 
admission  thereto  should  one  day  be  given  to  others. 
Later  on,  when  this  function  of  stewardship  in  the 
“  household  ”  of  faith  is  actually  conferred  on 
Peter,  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  xx. 
21-23),  it  is  to  him  along  with  others  of  Jesus’ 
tested  personal  disciples  (see  Luke  xxiv.  33  ff.), 
and  not  only  to  the  remaining  eleven  “  apostles,” 
that  it  is  given.  Nay,  the  apostolic  circle,  whether 


6 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


in  the  narrower  or  wider  sense,  has,  as  Dr.  Hort 
observes  in  his  classic  work  on  The  Christian 
Ecclesia,1  no  power  given  to  it  save  as  the  primary 
“  representatives  of  the  whole  Ecclesia  of  the 
future  ” — to  which  Matt,  xviii.  15-20  is  virtually 
addressed 2 ;  only  their  relation  of  discipleship  to 
the  Master  was  closer  than  that  of  other  disciples 
then  in  being  or  yet  to  be.  In  this  latter  capacity 
they  occupied  the  unique  and  incommunicable 
position  of  secondary  founders,  or  the  foundation 
stratum  of  the  building  (Eph.  ii.  20)  reared  on 
Christ  Himself — the  One  foundation,  as  St.  Paul 
puts  it  (1  Cor.  iii.  11),  “the  living  stone,”  “elect 
with  God,”  as  St.  Peter  has  it  in  his  Epistle  (1  Pet. 
ii.  4).  But,  apart  from  this  inevitable  distinction, 
they  are  not  marked  out  for  any  official  authority 
differing  in  kind  from  that  inherent  in  the  society 
of  believers  in  Jesus  as  God’s  Messiah.  This 
Society  was  to  be,  like  them,  the  recipient  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  mediated  by  Him  ;  and  of  it  we  read, 


1  “  If  at  the  Last  Supper,  and  during  the  discourses  which  followed, 

.  .  .  they  represented  the  whole  Ecclesia  of  the  future,  it  is  but 
natural  to  suppose  that  it  was  likewise  as  representatives  of  the 
whole  Ecclesia  of  the  future,  whether  associated  with  other  disciples 
or  not,  that  they  had  given  to  them  those  two  assurances  and  charges 
of  our  Lord”  which  are  often  thought  to  apply  to  them  exclusively 
as  “  the  Apostles  ”  (p.  33). 

2  It  is  the  disciple  as  such  who  is  to  seek  reconciliation  with  an 
offending  brother,  with  or  without  the  help  of  “  one  or  two  more.” 
t{  And  if  he  refuse  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church.  .  .  .  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  What  things  soever  ye  (i.e.  the  church,  even  in  the 
local  form  here  in  question)  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven.  .  .  .  For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  My 
name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.” 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  7 


in  Matt,  xviii.  15-18,  that  it  too,  even  in  its  local 
capacity — analogous  to  that  of  each  synagogue 
within  Judaism — should  have  its  decisions  touching 
its  own  communion,  in  “binding”  and  “loosing,” 
held  valid  before  God.  Of  any  commission  in 
virtue  of  which  the  apostles,  in  any  sense,  were 
meant  by  Christ  to  delegate  official  authority J  in 
whole  or  in  part,  to  others,  there  is  not  a  hint  in 
the  Gospels.  In  truth,  in  view  of  the  expected 
speedy  return  of  Christ,  it  would  have  seemed 
superfluous.  Further,  speaking  correctly,  they  did 
not  themselves  possess  authority  ex  officio ,  but 
rather  in  virtue  of  personal  qualification  con¬ 
ditioned  by  their  special  discipleship.  Through 
this  they  enjoyed  as  a  body,  and  as  led  by  the  most 
richly  endowed  among  them — it  might  be  Peter, 

1  This  is  even  clearer  than  Dr.  Hort’s  more  general  thesis, 
that  “  there  is  no  trace  in  Scripture  of  a  formal  commission  of 
authority  for  government  from  Christ  Himself  ”  to  the  apostles, 
true  as  that  is,  when  read  with  due  regard  to  the  qualifications  which 
Hort  supplies  in  the  wording  and  context  of  his  statement  (p.  84). 
The  apostolic  commission  was  essentially  such  as  attached  to  men 
specially  trained  by  intercourse  with  Jesus  Himself,  to  be  His 
primary  witnesses  and  to  expound,  by  the  aid  of  the  Spirit  given 
to  all  believers  according  to  their  several  capacities,  the  authentic 
principles  of  His  Gospel  in  their  fresh  applications  to  classes  and 
individuals  ;  in  fact,  “  to  give  ”  Christ’s  household  “  their  portion 
of  food  in  due  season  ”  (Luke  xii.  42).  “  Round  this,  their  definite 

function,  grew  up  in  process  of  time  an  indefinite  authority,  the 
natural  and  right  and  necessary  consequence  of  their  unique 
position,”  an  authority  which  extended  to  administration  and 
government — including  the  ordination  or  solemn  setting  apart  of 
others  to  ministry  in  the  Church.  But  “  it  did  not  supersede  the 
responsibility  and  action  of  the  Elders  or  the  Ecclesia  at  large,  but 
called  them  out  ”  (pp,  230  f.). 


8 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


it  might  be  James  the  Lord’s  brother,  not  an 
“  apostle  ”  at  all  in  the  strict  sense  (as  at  the 
council  in  Acts  xv.) — a  fuller  measure  of  the  Spirit’s 
illumination  than  could  be  counted  upon  elsewhere, 
even  in  the  Spirit-possessed  community.  But  all 
this  was  on  prophetic  lines  rather  than  those  of 
office  :  indeed  the  very  idea  of  official  grace  seems 
quite  alien  to  the  spirit  of  Christ’s  teaching  and  the 
l  life  of  the  early  apostolic  age. 

It  has  been  needful  to  deal  thus  fully  with  the 
nature  of  the  apostolic  commission,  because  much 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  ministry  has  its  root 
in  a  certain  confusion  of  thought  on  this  point. 
Authority  regarding  the  Gospel  and  its  practical 
applications,  as  something  attaching  to  the  primary 
“witnesses,”  is  one  thing  :  authority  for  the  organ¬ 
isation  of  the  Church  as  an  institution ,  including  an 
official  ministry  of  oversight  meant  to  propagate  itself 
and  the  delegated  power  thought  to  be  transmitted 
to  it,  is  quite  another.1  And  while  authority  touch- 

1  It  is  strange  that  so  essential  and  obvious  a  distinction  is  often 
overlooked,  as  it  is  by  Dr.  Bright,  e.g.  in  Some  Aspects  of  Primitive 
Church  Life.  Though  he  rightly  defines  the  purpose  of  the  steward¬ 
ship  referred  to  in  Luke  xii.  42  as  that  of  dispensing  spiritual  “  food 
in  due  season  ”  (p.  15),  he  extends  this  inf erenti ally,  in  violation  of 
the  law  of  parabolic  teaching,  so  as  to  prove  “  a  delegated  ‘rule’ 
over  the  servants  in  general  ”  as  “  essential  to  the  function  ”  of  the 
apostles.  He  further  speaks  of  such  governmental  stewardship 
as  “  permanent,”  and  deduces  the  idea  of  a  delegation  to  others 
of  part  of  the  same  office  and  of  power  to  transmit  this  in  turn 
(cf.  48  and  note) — ideas  quite  alien  to  the  spirit  and  context  of  the 
simile  and  to  its  restricted  temporal  horizon,  as  determined  by  the 
return  of  the  Lord  of  the  house  during  the  lifetime  of  the  original 
stewards  (Luke  xii.  42  If. ;  Matt.  xxiv.  45  ff.). 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  9 


ing  this  ministry  of  the  Word  is  given  in  a  special 
manner  to  the  original  apostolic  circle,  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  Gospels  of  authority  for  ordination  of 
other  ministers  or  touching  sacraments,  as  form¬ 
ing  part  of  any  commission  given  by  Christ.  The 
distinction  affects  the  very  genius  of  His  Gospel  ; 
and  it  is  more  than  precarious  to  assume  from  the 
presence  of  the  one  kind  of  commission  the  tacit 
inclusion  of  the  other. 

What  has  been  said  so  far  touching  the  idea  of } 
the  Church  and  of  its  primary  ministry  is  fully 
borne  out  by  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  particularly 
its  account  of  Pentecost.  There  we  are  made  to 
see  that  the  outpouring  of  the  Messianic  gift  of  the 
Spirit,  as  foretold  in  Joel,  was  the  essential  mark 
of  the  New  Community  ;  its  “  sons  55  and  “  daugh¬ 
ters  ”  should  prophesy  ;  they  should  live  under  the 
direct  initiative  of  the  Spirit,  who  quickens  spiritual 
“  gifts  ”  in  one  and  another  as  God  wills,  but  always 
(as  St.  Paul  emphasises  in  his  Epistles)  for  use 
in  ministry  unto  the  common  profit.  To  this  we } 
shall  return  shortly.  Meantime  we  notice  how  the 
nature  of  the  apostolic  authority  for  admitting  to 
the  Kingdom,  simply  by  declaring  the  conditions  of 
forgiveness  of  sins,  is  made  clear  in  what  Peter  says 
in  reply  to  the  people’s  question,  “  Brethren,  what 
shall  we  do  ?  ”  And  the  like  occurs  again  and 
again,  and  always  in  relation  to  classes  of  would-be 
members  of  the  Church  rather  than  to  individuals. 


io 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Take  the  admission  of  the  Samaritans,  who  seemed 
a  doubtful  class  of  converts  until  Peter  and  John 
exercised  the  function  of  44  loosing  ”  any  restrictions 
on  faith  which  might  be  thought  to  44  bind  55  them. 
Here  was  an  act  44  on  earth  55  which  was  proved  to 
be  sanctioned  44  in  heaven  ”  by  the  manifest  coming 
upon  this  fresh  class  of  believers  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  was  at  first  a  usual  accompaniment  of  faith  in 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  ;  and  in  the  case  of  Cornelius 
and  his  friends  it  appeared  while  Peter  was  preaching 
the  Gospel  to  them,  apart  from  any  act  of  prayer 
and  laying-on  of  hands ;  so  that  these  cannot  be 
regarded  as  having  been  essential  conditions  of 
the  gift  in  question.  Again,  in  the  Jerusalem  Con¬ 
ference  of  Acts  xv.  we  have  another  case  of  apostolic 
“binding”  and  44  loosing,”  as  regards  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  Gentile  membership  in  the  Church  ;  only 
here  the  whole  Jerusalem  Church  partakes  in  the 
authority  of  the  act.  James  the  Lord’s  brother, 
who  was  not  an  apostle  in  the  strict  sense,  largely 
determines  the  decision  ;  the  presbyters  or  local 
representatives  of  the  Church  share  in  it  and  in  its 
formal  promulgation  ;  and  the  consent  of  the  whole 
local  brotherhood  is  noted.  These  were  all  cases 
which  directly  involved  the  principles  of  the  Gospel 
itself,  of  which  the  apostles  were  naturally  the 
primary  witnesses  and  interpreters,  and  where  their 
authority,  as  defined  by  a  special  commission  from 
Christ,  was  therefore  at  its  maximum.  Yet  even 
here  they  do  not  act,  when  the  co-operation  of 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  il 


the  Church  as  a  whole  is  available,  and  notably 
where  the  case  is  the  gravest  of  all,  on  their  own 
independent  authority,  but  rather  as  representa¬ 
tives — if  the  primary  and  natural  representatives — 
of  the  Spirit-possessed  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  as  1 
Dr.  Hort  puts  it,  when  he  says  (p.  84)  :  “  There  is 
indeed  no  trace  in  Scripture  of  a  formal  commission 
of  authority  for  government  from  Christ  Himself,” 
peculiar  to  the  apostles.  “  Their  commission  was 
to  be  witnesses  of  Himself.”  Out  of  their  unique 
position  in  this  respect  would  naturally  grow 
“  an  ill-defined  but  lofty  authority  in  matters  of 
government  and  administration,”  by  general  con¬ 
sent.  That  is,  their  authority  in  such  matters  was 
the  authority  of  moral  influence,  not  of  formal 
commission  ;  and  they  had  no  thought  of  determin¬ 
ing  ex  officio  the  method  of  the  Church’s  future 
organisation,  or  devolving  on  any  part  of  its  ministry, 
as  this  arose  spontaneously  by  the  teachings  of 
experience,  any  authority  from  themselves  for 
government,  ordination,  or  sacramental  grace. 

As  regards  the  more  ordinary  or  local  kind  of 
ministry,  elders  (presbyters)  were  the  chief  type,  in 
keeping  with  existing  Jewish  habits.  Now  there 
is  no  notice  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  original 
apostles  having  had  any  hand  in  their  appointment — 
as  though  no  principle  of  moment  were  involved  in 
the  matter — whenever  and  however  it  may  have 
come  about.  Possibly  it  was  at  first  on  informal 
and  patriarchal  lines,  rather  than  by  any  definite 


12 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


act  of  election  by  the  Church  as  a  whole,  with 
sanction  and  solemn  setting  apart  by  the  apostles, 
such  as  we  read  of  in  the  case  of  the  seven  almoners 
(Acts  vi.)  called  into  being  by  a  special  exigency  in 
the  Church’s  corporate  life.1  In  any  case  had  devolu¬ 
tion  of  authority  from  the  apostles  to  the  Church’s 
ordinary  leaders,  the  elders  (supposing  it  actually 
to  have  taken  place),  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
prime  principle — as  it  has  been  esteemed  in  later 
times— it  would  surely  have  been  recorded. 

The  fact  is  that,  apart  from  the  original  apostolic 
circle,  who  stood  very  much  in  a  unique  position 
as  spiritual  Fathers  of  the  Church,  like  apostolic 
missionaries  in  all  ages,  ministry  in  the  Apostolic 
Age  had  quite  another  origin  than  that  suggested 
by  the  terms  “  devolution  of  authority  ”  or  “  apos¬ 
tolic  succession.”  It  was  determined  by  charis¬ 
matic  gifts,  operative  in  a  community  conscious  of 
special  inspiration  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  as  the  link 
between  itself  and  the  Head  of  the  Church.  Accord¬ 
ingly  the  basis  of  the  Church’s  ministry  at  large, 
whether  that  of  the  Word  or  other,  lay  in  the  “  gift  ” 
qualifying  for  any  form  of  service  to  the  brethren 
in  their  corporate  life  or  fellowship  ( Icoinonia ). 
Such  gifts  were  traced  ultimately  to  Christ,  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  directly  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ; 
while  the  corporate  capacity  to  recognise  their 

1  In  this  connexion  we  gather  that  the  apostles  regarded  “  the 
ministry  of  the  Word,”  not  administration,  as  their  own  proper 
calling. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  13 


presence  in  any  member  was  referred  to  the  same 
Spirit,  at  work  in  measure  in  all.  Hence  both  the 
call  inherent  in  the  gift,  and  the  outward  ratification 
afforded  by  the  common  consciousness  of  the  Spirit¬ 
bearing  Church,  sanctioning  the  regular  use  of  such 
a  gift  in  its  midst,  were  alike  Divine  in  origin,  and 
together  constituted  the  authority  for  the  exercise 
of  the  ministry  in  question.  That  is,  gifts  deter-  j 
mined  functions  in  members  of  the  body  ;  function 
became  recognised  ministry  by  common  consent ; 
and  common  consent  passed  at  length  in  certain 
cases  into  formal  appointment  by  the  local  Church, 
acting  through  its  leaders,  whether  general  or  local. 

This  is  what  emerges  clearly  from  a  study  of 
St.  Paul’s  Epistles,  which  give  us  our  most  direct 
insight  into  the  stages  through  which  the  idea 
of  ministry  passed,  ere  it  reached  that  of  settled 
office  with  definite  duties  and  powers.  Space 
forbids  more  than  a  few  illustrations.  Take  first 
a  quotation  from  so  typical  a  writing  as  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  Having  referred  to  the  idea  of  the 
Church  as  an  organism  made  up  of  many  mutually 
dependent  members,  Paul  adds  (xii.  6-9)  :  “  And 
having  gifts  (charismata)  differing  according  to  the 
grace  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy  (inspired 
utterance  in  general),  let  us  prophesy  according  to 
the  proportion  of  our  faith ;  or  ministry  ( i.e . 
practical  service),  let  us  exercise  our  ministry ; 
or  he  that  teacheth,  his  teaching  ;  or  he  that  ex- 
horteth,  his  exhorting ;  he  that  communicateth 


14 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


(of  his  goods),  with  liberality  ;  he  that  acts  as 
patron  (7rpourrci(/jBi>og,  cf.  Rom.  xvi.  2),  with  diligence  ; 
he  that  doeth  deeds  of  mercy,  with  cheerfulness. 
Let  love  be  without  affectation.”  Here  observe : 

(1)  the  gifts  are  their  own  warrant  for  service  ; 

(2)  the  writer  passes  easily  from  gifts  per  se,  to  per¬ 
sons  who  have  and  use  gifts  ;  (3)  the  gifts  include 
both  what  we  should  call  exceptional  or  super¬ 
normal,  like  prophecy,  and  more  normal  human 
functions,  such  as  aptitude  for  kindly  service, 
leadership,  or  acts  of  charity  ;  (4)  the  spirit  of  the 
whole  corporate  life,  its  bond,  is  Love,  in  the 
peculiarly  deep  and  wide  Christian  sense.  Some 
of  these  points  receive  further  definition  for  us  in 
other  passages  in  Paul’s  letters.  Thus  the  originally 
spontaneous  or  personal  nature  of  Christian  ministry 
comes  out  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  15  f.  :  “Now  I  beseech 
you,  brethren — ye  know  the  household  of  Stephanas, 
that  it  is  a  first-fruit  of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have 
set  themselves  to  minister  unto  the  saints — that  ye 
also  submit  yourselves  unto  such,1  and  to  every  one 
that  helpeth  in  the  work  and  laboureth  ”  ;  and  he 
continues,  “Recognise  then  such  persons.”  Here 

1  The  words  “be  in  subjection  ( vTrordo-crrjade )  to  such  ”  are  here 
the  important  ones,  showing  that  it  is  no  case  of  “  deferential  regard 
for  spiritual  aptitudes  and  activities  of  laymen,”  as  Dr.  W.  Bright 
s  would  have  it  ( Some  Aspects  of  Primitive  Church  Life ,  p.  27).  But 
it  is  most  characteristic  of  the  spirit  and  emphasis  of  the  earliest 
Christian  thought  about  the  ministry,  that  the  aspect  of  “  ministry  ” 
or  personal  service  at  first  prevails,  and  that  it  is  only  gradually  that 
the  aspect  of  leadership  or  government,  which  is  in  practice  implicit 
in  the  other,  receives  more  notice ;  cf,  below  on  1  Cor.  xii.  28. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  15 


we  have  clear  evidence  that  there  was  at  Corinth 
a  type  of  local  ministry  which  called  for  subordina¬ 
tion  on  the  part  of  those  ministered  to,  and  yet 
was  of  spontaneous  origin,  not  of  formal  appoint¬ 
ment  either  by  this  Church’s  founder  or  by  the 
Church  itself  ;  and  the  like  was  seemingly  true 
elsewhere,  to  judge  from  1  Tliess.  v.  12.  “  But  we 

beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them  that  labour 
among  you,  and  are  your  patrons  1  in  the  Lord, 
and  admonish  you  ;  and  to  esteem  them  very  highly 
in  love  for  their  work’s  sake.”  But  at  Corinth  we 

see  from  the  very  way  in  which  their  apostle  writes 

/ 

touching  the  disorders  in  Church  life,  that  there 
was  as  yet  no  body  of  persons  on  the  spot  with 
recognised  ministerial  authority,  able  to  control 
the  over-exuberance  and  self-assertiveness  of  the 
exercise,  in  church  meeting,  of  the  various  inspired 
“  gifts  ”  which  Paul  recognises  as  so  abundant 
among  them  (i.  5-7,  xiv.  passim).  Among  such 
gifts,  as  referred  to  in  eh.  xii.,  we  can,  how¬ 
ever,  discern  those  possessed  by  the  persons  whom 
later  in  the  Epistle  he  describes  as  devoting  them¬ 
selves  to  “  minister  to  the  saints,”  viz.  “  gifts  ”  of 
assistance  and  guidance  (such  as  the  steersman  gives 
to  the  ship,  xii.  28).  Here  surely  we  have  the 

1  The  verb  rendered  “  are  over  you  ”  ( TrpotcrraadaL )  means  rather 
“  take  protective  charge  of,”  as  the  ancient  patron  did  of  his  clients, 
caring  for  their  interests  generally.  The  idea  of  leadership  or  rule 
is  subordinate  to  this  ;  thus  Phoebe  is  called  (Rom.  xvi.  1  f.)  first  a 
“  minister  ”  or  servant  of  the  church  at  Cenchrege,  and  then  a 
“  succourer  ”  or  patroness  (TTpoaraTis)  of  many. 


16 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


vital  germ  of  the  junctions ,  later  the  offices,  of 
“  deacons  ”  and  “  bishops  ” — suggestively  enough, 
in  the  reverse  order  to  that  in  which  they  came  to 
rank  as  regular  offices.  For  at  first  practical  help 
to  those  in  need  seemed  more  necessary,  as  it  was 
certainly  more  distinctive  of  the  Christian  spirit, 
than  discipline  and  order,  individual  and  corporate, 
among  the  members  of  Christ’s  Church  (see  note 
to  p.  14).  Experience  in  the  long-run  brought  out 
the  full  importance  of  the  latter,  especially  as  the 
exceptional  moral  control  of  the  missionary  founders 
^of  churches  was  gradually  withdrawn. 

All  ministry,  then,  was  at  first  charismatic  in 
basis,  whether  “  apostles,  prophets,  teachers  ” — the 
special  ministers  of  the  inspired  Word  of  the  Gospel, 
as  revealed  by  the  Spirit  —  or,  again,  “helpers” 
of  the  needy,  and  “  overseers  ”  or  guardians  of  the 
Church’s  life  collectively  and  individually.  But 
while  this  was  so  originally,  and  therefore  in  idea, 
a  difference  ere  long  emerged  as  regards  formal 
recognition  or  appointment  by  the  Church.  The 
reasons  of  this  distinction  seem  twofold  ;  the  less 
manifest  nature  of  the  Spirit’s  presence  in  the  latter 
type  of  ministers,  and  the  more  constant  and  in¬ 
timate  relation  between  them  and  the  local  church 
whom  they  served  representatively.  “  Apostles,” 
in  the  wider  sense  of  men  with  a  special  missionary 
enthusiasm  and  power  (including  a  Barnabas  and 
Silas,  and  probably  a  Philip  the  Evangelist),  along 
with  “  prophets  ”  and  “  teachers  ” — these,  in  their 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  17 


several  degrees,  were  charismatic  ministers  par 
excellence  ;  and  their  ministry  had  either  no  local 
limitation  or  only  a  rather  accidental  one.  There 
is  no  trace  of  any  such  “  gifted  ”  men  of  the  first 
order  being  ordained  to  their  ministry  by  any  person 
or  body  of  persons  ;  they  seem,  nevertheless— and 
this  is  most  significant — to  have  offered  the  repre¬ 
sentative  Eucharistic  prayer  on  behalf  of  the  local 
church,  when  any  of  them  happened  to  be  present.  ; 
The  act,  that  is  to  say,  was  regarded  as  a  prophetic 
or  inspired  one  ;  and,  if  we  may  judge  from  1  Cor. 
xiv.  16,  one  or  more  members  of  the  Church  who 
had  the  requisite  gift  might  in  early  days  lead  its 
devotions  in  this  way.  But,  in  any  case,  Euchar¬ 
istic  prayer  was  not  originally  among  the  special 
functions  of  the  ordinary  local  ministry  of  “  over¬ 
sight  ”  and  “  relief,5’  the  less  gifted  genus  of  which 
official  elders  or  presbyters  were  the  primary  type. 
Such  elders  were  from  the  first,  in  some  churches 
at  least,  e.g.  those  of  South  Galatia  in  Acts  xiv.  23, 
formally  appointed  and  set  apart  with  prayer 
to  their  responsible  representative  ministry  ;  and 
although  usage  probably  varied  a  good  deal,  accord¬ 
ing  as  the  converts  were  before  accustomed  to 
Jewish  or  non- Jewish  types  of  leadership,  there 
were  soon  ministers  of  the  type  of  elders,  such  as 
Paul  describes  in  Eph.  iv.  11  as  “pastors  and 
teachers,”  regularly  appointed  or  ordained  in  the 
churches  generally,  so  far  as  known  to  us.  These 
not  only  acted  as  pastors  of  the  flock  in  detail,  but 


18 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


also  exercised  a  presiding  or  controlling  influence 
over  the  conduct  of  its  meetings  for  worship  and 
mutual  edification,  while  not  themselves  necessarily 
leading  the  Church  in  teaching,  prayer,  or  praise. 

But  as  time  went  on,  prophetic  or  inspired 
spontaneity  tended  to  play  an  ever  smaller  part 
in  ordinary  Church  worship,  and  even  to  be  looked 
at  rather  askance.  Already  in  1  Thess.  v.  19-21, 
St.  Paul  has  occasion  to  write  :  “  Quench  not  the 
Spirit,  despise  not  prophesyings  ;  put  all  things 
to  the  test ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.”  More¬ 
over,  a  sort  of  fixed,  local  type  of  prayer,  parti¬ 
cularly  Eucharistic  prayer,  gradually  took  shape, 
perhaps  through  the  influence  of  some  prophetic 
person,  whose  favourite  ideas  and  expressions 
would  be  used  by  others,  and  especially  by  the 
presiding  elders  or  “  overseers  ”  (cf.  Acts  xx.  28), 
when  it  fell  to  them  in  the  absence  of  charismatic 
persons  to  take  the  lead  in  the  Church’s  Eucharist. 
Such  a  state  of  things  meets  us  most  clearly  in  the 
traditional  “  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  ”  current 
in  some  region  of  Syria,  as  reduced  to  writing  pro¬ 
bably  about  the  last  quarter  of  the  first  century. 
This  “  Teaching  ”  or  Didache  enables  us  to  co¬ 
ordinate  a  good  many  hints  found  scattered  about 
the  New  Testament,  and  to  fill  in  these  outlines 
still  further.  From  it  we  gather  that  the  unor¬ 
dained,  charismatic  ministry  was  dying  out,  partly 
through  the  openings  it  offered  for  abuses  ;  and 
that  its  functions  were  passing  to  the  more  ordinary 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  19 


local  ministry,  here  styled  “  bishops  (overseers) 
and  deacons.”  To  judge  from  their  qualifications, 
as  of  character  rather  than  special  gift,  they  were 
originally  of  the  administrative  type  already  de¬ 
scribed  ;  but  as  the  need  arose  they  were  coming 
to  “  exercise  the  ministry  of  the  prophets  and 
teachers,”  the  more  gifted  ministry  now  passing 
away.  Unlike  these,  “  bishops  and  deacons  ”  are 
to  be  elected  by  their  local  church,  and  apparently 
ordained  by  it  also,  probably  through  the  medium  of 
its  existing  leaders,  charismatic  or  official  ;  but  the 
procedure  is  not  specified,  as  though  no  important 
principle  were  involved  in  it — since  elsewhere,  in 
the  Didache  ritual  instructions  are  quite  specific. 

This  state  of  things  is  analogous  to  that  implied 
in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus : 
only  the  transition  from  a  mainly  charismatic 
ministry  to  one  of  regular  office  came  earlier  in 
the  highly  developed  city  life  of  Graecised  Western 
Asia  and  Crete,  than  was  natural  in  the  more  rural 
conditions  of  Syrian  life,  as  implied  by  the  DidacM. 
But  even  in  the  former  cases  the  change  is  only 
beginning  ;  and  the  officers  whose  importance  is 
now  for  the  first  time  emphasised  by  St.  Paul  are 
simply  elders  and  deacons.  “  Of  officers  higher 
than  elders,”  says  Hort  (p.  232),  “  we  find  nothing 
that  points  to  an  institution  or  system,  nothing  like 
the  episcopal  system  of  later  times.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  word  episcopos,  as  applied  to  men, 
mainly,  if  not  always,  is  not  a  title,  but  a  descrip- 


20 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


tion  of  the  elder’s  function.”  As  regards  the  tem¬ 
porary  duties  of  Timothy  and  Titus  as  apostolic 
delegates,  these  seem  no  more  integral  to  the  system 
which  they  were  to  help  the  Churches  to  establish, 
than  were  the  apostles  themselves,  whose  functions 
as  founders  naturally  ceased  with  their  own  lives 
and  with  the  work  of  foundation. 

The  Church  idea  involved  in  the  prayers  which 
the  Didache  cites  as  to  be  used  at  the  Eucharistic 
meal  is  of  high  interest  for  us.  It  shows  how 
intense  the  corporate  consciousness  of  spiritual  one¬ 
ness  was  at  a  time  when  each  local  community  was 
unconnected  by  any  permanent  organisation  with 
its  sister  churches,  yet  all  Christ’s  members  were 
none  the  less  felt  to  constitute  God’s  one  holy  Church, 
waiting  to  be  gathered  in  visible  unity  into  His 
Kingdom,  as  the  many  grains  of  the  one  loaf  of 
communion  had  been  gathered  into  unity.  This 
answers  completely  to  St.  Paul’s  idea  of  the  Church 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  as  summed  up  by 
I)r.  Plort  (p.  168)  :  “  Not  a  word  in  the  Epistle 
exhibits  the  One  Ecclesia  as  made  up  of  many 
ecclesice.  To  each  local  Ecclesise  St.  Paul  has  ascribed 
a  corresponding  unity  of  its  own  :  each  is  a  body  of 
Christ  and  a  sanctuary  of  God  :  but  there  is  no 
grouping  of  them  into  partial  wholes  or  into  one 
great  whole  [■ i.e .  by  a  unified  organisation].  The 
members  which  make  up  the  One  Ecclesia  are  not 
communities,  but  individual  men.  The  One  Ecclesia 
includes  all  members  of  all  partial  Ecclesise  ;  but 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  21 


its  relations  to  them  all  are  direct ,  not  mediate.  It 
is  true  that  ...  St.  Paul  anxiously  promoted 
friendly  intercourse  and  sympathy  between  the 
scattered  Ecclesise  :  but  the  unity  of  the  universal 
Ecclesia,  as  he  contemplated  it,  does  not  belong  to 
this  region  :  it  is  a  truth  of  theology  and  of  religion, 
not  a  fact  of  what  we  call  ecclesiastical  politics  ” 

[ i.e .  polity].  This  is  one  of  the  most  important 
passages  that  have  been  written  in  recent  years  on 
the  subject  of  the  Church  and  its  real  unity  :  and 
until  it  is  duly  assimilated  by  Churchmen  of  all 
types,  we  shall  not  get  much  secure  progress  towards 
more  formal  and  visible  unity,  such  as  Hort  goes 
on  to  recognise  as  important  for  the  Church’s  well¬ 
being,  but  always  on  the  basis  of  the  invisible  and 
most  real  unity  which  it  already  has  44  in  Christ,” 
that  is,  in  virtue  of  the  relation  of  each  living 
member  to  Him  as  Head — in  addition  to  his  local 
church  membership.  This  is  exactly  the  underlying 
Protestant  idea  of  the  Church  and  its  unity.  This 
44  unity  of  the  Spirit  ”  is  the  esse  of  the  Church’s 
oneness.  As  for  further  corporate  unity,  beyond 
the  inter-communion  which  St.  Paul  presupposes  as 
the  corollary  of  “One  Lord,”  44  one  faith,”  in  Him 
as  such,  44  one  baptism  ”  as  its  outward  sign  and 
seal — inter  -  communion  which  only  an  exclusive 
doctrine  of  the  44  historic  Episcopate  ”  limits  and 

i 

hinders  to-day — this  is  of  the  bene  esse  of  the  Church,  i 

'  '  r 

As  such,  it  is  well  worthy  our  efforts  to  realise  it, 
save  at  the  cost  of  obscuring  or  surrendering  the 


22 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


deeper  truth  of  existing  unity  in  the  Head,  which 
St.  Paul  here  and  always  emphasises. 

Here,  once  more,  the  question  of  the  idea  of  the 
Church  has  brought  into  view  that  of  its  ministry, 
which  Protestants  make  secondary,  but  “  Catholics  ” 
of  all  sorts  treat  as  practically  determinative.  On 
this  point,  too,  we  may  quote  Dr.  Hort’s  summing 
up  of  New  Testament  teaching 1 :  “  The  Apostles 
were  not  in  any  proper  sense  officers  of  the  Ecclesia.” 
As  its  founders  through  the  message  of  the  Gospel, 
they  came  indeed  to  exercise  in  practice  a  moral 
authority  in  the  Church  which  had  no  formal  limits  ; 
but  it  was  an  authority  incapable  of  transmission, 
and  they  made  no  claim  to  transmit  it.  “  There  is 
no  trace  in  the  New  Testament  that  any  ordinances 
on  this  subject  [i.e.  the  constitution  of  a  ministry 
for  the  Church]  were  prescribed  by  the  Lord,  or  that 
any  such  ordinances  were  set  up  as  permanently 
binding  by  the  Twelve  or  by  St.  Paul  or  by  the 
Ecclesia  at  large.  Their  faith  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  His  perpetual  guidance  was  too  much  of  a 
reality  to  make  that  possible.”  As  regards  the 
normal  authority  (i.e.  apart  from  the  presence  of 
apostles  or  other  “  gifted  ”  persons)  through  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  regarded  as  guiding  the  Church 
in  its  corporate  acts,  including  the  selection  and 
appointment  of  its  own  ministry,  as  in  essence 
divinely  given  through  charismatic  gifts,  Dr.  Hort 
further  says  (p.  229)  :  “  Nothing  perhaps  has  been 

1  Christian  Ecclesia ,  pp.  329  ff. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  23 


more  prominent  in  our  examination  of  the  Ecclesiae 
of  the  Apostolic  Age  than  the  fact  that  the  Ecclesia 
itself,  i.e.  apparently  the  sum  of  all  its  male  adult 
members,  is  the  primary  body,  and  it  would  seem, 
even  the  primary  authority.  It  may  be  that  this 
state  of  things  was  in  some  ways  a  mark  of  imma¬ 
turity.  .  .  .  Still  the  very  origin  and  fundamental 
nature  of  the  Ecclesia  as  a  community  of  disciples 
renders  it  impossible  that  the  principle  should  rightly 
become  obsolete.  In  a  word,  we  cannot  properly 
speak  of  an  organisation  of  a  community  from  which 
the  greater  part  of  its  members  are  excluded.  The 
true  way,  the  apostolic  way,  of  regarding  offices  or 
officers  in  the  Ecclesia  is  to  regard  them  as  organs 
of  its  corporate  life  for  special  purposes  ;  so  that 
the  offices  of  an  Ecclesia  at  any  period  are  only  a 
part  of  its  organisation.”  Yet  can  it  be  questioned 
that  the  principle  of  corporate  control  over  the 
ministry,  and  oyer  Church  action  generally,  as 
belonging  to  the  whole  body  of  Church  members 
constituting  the  local  Church  fellowship,  has  in  fact 
become  almost  “  obsolete  ”  save  where  the  Protes¬ 
tant  idea  of  Church  and  ministry  prevail  ?  And  can 
it  be  imagined  that  such  a  fundamental  change  of 
emphasis  and  perspective  is  not  largely  responsible 
for  the  gulf  at  present  fixed  between  “  Catholic  ” 
and  “  Protestant  ”  ideals  of  the  organisation  of  the 
Spirit-bearing  Body  of  Christ  ?  With  true  insight 
was  it  that  Luther  saw  and  declared1  that  the 

1  Compare  Lindsay,  History  of  the  Reformation ,  i.  440  ff, 


24 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


priesthood  and  kingship  of  all  true  believers  in 
Christ  was  the  characteristic  and  determinative  idea 
of  the  Church,  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel ;  and  that 
the  opposite  doctrine  of  a  divinely  instituted  and 
exclusive  official  priesthood,  self-propagated  and 
autocratic  in  its  authority,  was  inconsistent  there¬ 
with.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Moberly,  with  his  idea  of 
“  ministerial  priesthood,”  has  done  something  in 
recent  years  to  bring  the  two  terms  and  aspects  of 
this  antithesis  together  in  a  higher  unity.  But  it 
is  to  be  feared  that  his  attempt  does  not  go  quite 
to  the  root  of  the  matter.  He  still  holds  that  there 
is  no  valid  “  ministerial  priesthood  ”  for  sacra¬ 
mental  purposes  which  owes  its  Churchly  commis¬ 
sion  simply  to  the  authority  immanent  in  the 
Church’s  corporate  life  as  such.  Yet  the  kind  of 
ministerial  authority  which  Dr.  Moberly  is  at  pains 
to  exclude  is  for  many  the  on]y  one  which  comports 
with  a  truly  representative  view  of  ministry  for  a 
society  that  is  itself  “  a  holy  priesthood,”  qualified 
itself  “  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ”  (1  Pet.  ii.  5;  cf.  Apoc. 
i.  6).  These  sacrifices  the  Apostle  Peter  does  not 
stay  to  define,  like  the  writer  to  Hebrews,  as  the 
“  sacrifice  of  praise  ”  (xiii.  15),  and  like  the  DidacM 
(xv.)  as  the  sacrifice  of  Thanksgiving  made  pure  by 
mutual  love.  But  he  clearly  has  in  mind  the  proper 
Christian  sacrifices,  so  defined,  touching  which 
Irenaeus  more  than  a  century  later  says  :  “  Sacrifices 
do  not  sanctify  a  man  :  but  the  conscience,  if  pure, 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  25 


of  him  who  offers  sanctifies  the  sacrifice,  and  causes 
God  to  accept  it  as  from  a  friend  5  5 — a  friend  already 
sanctified  and  made  a  priest,  as  Hebrews  teaches, 
on  the  abiding  basis  of  the  One  atoning  Sacrifice 
in  Jesus  Christ.  Accordingly  the  Church’s  “  minis¬ 
terial  priesthood  ”  is  simply  one  of  specialised 
representatives,  through  whom  it  gives  orderly  and 
organic  expression,  as  through  its  most  spiritually 
fit  members,  to  its  self-oblation  in  thankful  devo¬ 
tion — symbolised  in  the  material  “  gifts  ”  of  God’s 
bounty  which  the  Church  returns  to  Him  in  earnest 
of  its  complete  homage.  In  return  it  receives,  as 
God’s  answering  gift,  the  fresh  grace  of  Christ, 
given  directly  by  His  Spirit  to  the  waiting  soul  as 
it  receives  the  outward  symbols  of  Christ’s  body  and 
blood  —  representing  Christ  Himself — with  loving 
faith.  This  is  the  Catholic  Protestant  idea  of  the 
ministry,  answering  to  that  of  the  Church,  as  defined 
e.g.  in  the  nineteenth  and  twenty- third  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England — themselves  based  on  the  primary 
Lutheran  Confession  of  Augsburg.  Article  xxm.  de¬ 
fines  “  the  office  of  public  preaching  ”  and  “minister¬ 
ing  the  Sacraments  in  the  Congregation  ”  (Church), 
as  lawfully  held  by  such  as  “be  chosen  and  called  to 
this  work  by  men  who  have  public  authority  given 
unto  them  in  the  Congregation,  to  call  and  send 
Ministers  into  the  Lord’s  vineyard.”  Protestants 
differ  as  to  the  exact  nature  of  the  “  public 
authority  ”  needful,  on  the  ground  of  early  pre¬ 
cedent  and  expediency,  as  also  in  the  methods  of 


26 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


“  choosing  and  calling  ”  to  office  :  but  in  essential  idea 
they  are  at  one  ;  and  it  is  an  idea  deeply  rooted 
in  early  Christianity.  It  is  the  idea  of  “  order,” 
but  not  of  “  orders  ”  in  the  “  Catholic  ”  sense. 

That  about  the  end  of  the  second  Christian 
generation  the  oversight  of  each  local  or  city  church 
begins  in  certain  regions  to  appear  as  focused  in  a 
single  chief  pastor  or  bishop,  is  a  fact  which  no 
Protestant  need  care  to  dispute.  Such  a  type  of 
episcopate,  the  most  truly  “  historic  ”  of  all,  and 
the  only  one  entitled  to  claim  even  partial  apostolic 
sanction,  is  common  to  the  great  bulk  of  Protestant 
communions.  But  not  even  it  can  justly  claim 
the  special  authority  meant  by  “  apostolic  succes¬ 
sion.”  The  very  idea  involved  in  this  phrase  can 
be  traced  at  most  in  one  writing  only  of  the 
sub-apostolic  period  ;  and  that  one,  significantly 
enough,  represents  the  Church  in  Rome.  But  in 
fact  it  is  most  doubtful  whether  even  it  really  con¬ 
tains  the  idea  in  question.  The  Epistle  of  Clement, 
dating  c.  96  a.d.,  remonstrates  with  the  Church  in 
Corinth  for  having  without  due  cause  deposed  from 
office,  not  a  single  bishop,  but  a  body  of  “  bishops,” 
otherwise  called  “  presbyters.”  The  crucial  passage 
is  as  follows  (ch.  xliv.)  :~ 

“  Our  apostles  .  .  .  appointed  the  aforesaid  per¬ 
sons  ;  and  afterwards  they  gave  a  fresh  instruction 
that,  if  these  should  fall  asleep,  other  approved 
men  should  succeed  to  their  ministry.  Those, 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  27 


then,  who  were  appointed  by  them,  or  afterward 
by  other  men  of  repute  with  the  consent  of  the 
church  as  a  whole,  and  have  ministered  unblam- 
ably  to  the  flock  of  Christ  in  lowliness  of  mind, 
peacefully  and  with  all  modesty,  and  for  a  long 
time  have  borne  a  good  report  with  all — these  men 
we  consider  to  be  unjustly  thrust  out  from  their 
ministry.  For  it  will  be  no  light  sin  for  us,  if  we 
thrust  out  from  the  office  of  oversight  those  who 
have  offered  the  gifts  unblamably  and  holily.  .  .  . 
For  we  see  that  ye  have  displaced  certain  persons, 
though  they  were  living  honourably,  from  the 
ministry  which  had  been  blamelessly  performed 
with  reverence  by  them.” 

Here  we  observe  that  (1)  the  office  instituted 
by  apostles  for  the  continuous  “  oversight  ”  (episco¬ 
pate)  of  each  church,  as  long  as  Christ  should  tarry, 
was  that  of  a  presbyteral  college,1  not  of  a  single 
bishop  in  an  order  distinct  from  the  presbyterate  ; 

(2)  it  is  not  suggested  that  the  local  church  had  no 
authority  to  transfer  the  office  in  question  from  one 
body  of  office-bearers  to  another,  but  rather  that 
it  had  done  so  “  unjustly  ”  in  the  case  of  men  who 
had  “  served  the  flock  of  Christ  blamelessly  ” 
and  with  universal  acceptance  during  a  long  period  ; 

(3)  this  irregularity  was  the  more  grave  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Corinthian  majority  were  thereby 
setting  aside  men  appointed  to  an  office  of  “  over¬ 
sight  ”  apostolic  in  origin  and  in  the  method  estab- 

1  Corresponding  practically  to  a  “  church-session  ”  in  Presby¬ 
terianism  or  in  the  early  Congregational  churches,  where  the  office 
of  “  elder  ”  was  kept  distinct  from  that  of  “  deacon,”  with  which 
it  was  blended  later  on, 


28 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


lished  for  filling  np  vacancies  in  its  ranks.  But  it 
is  nowhere  claimed  that  the  respect  due  to  such 
an  order  of  ministry  owed  anything  to  any  grace  of 
orders  transmitted  from  the  apostles  to  any  one 
at  all.  Yet  such  a  consideration,  had  it  been  present 
to  the  mind  of  Christians  at  that  date,  would  have 
added  enormously  to  the  gravity  alike  of  the 
irregularity  and  of  the  protest  raised  in  this  epistle. 
Instead  of  this,  the  expression  used  to  describe 
those  who  succeeded  to  the  function  originally 
performed  by  the  apostles  themselves,  that  of 
formally  “appointing”  to  office  by  some  solemn 
action  those  approved  by  the  whole  local  church, 
is  simply  “  other  men  of  repute  5 5  (erepoj  eXKoyif/jOi 
dvhpeg) — a  phrase  denoting  moral  authority  in  the 
community,  but  quite  devoid  of  other  suggestions. 
In  particular,  there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  “  other 
men  of  repute  ”  had  been  appointed  or  ordained  by 
the  apostles  for  this  purpose.  In  a  word,  there  is 
no  doctrine  of  succession  to  apostolic  grace ,  but  only 
of  continuity  in  apostolic  order. 

Further,  the  whole  statement  of  the  current 
Roman  theory  is  quite  general,  with  the  generality 
of  an  a  priori  assumption  rather  than  of  exhaustive 
historical  knowledge.  We  happen,  too,  to  know 
that  it  is  in  part  at  least  inaccurate,  inasmuch  as 
we  have  already  seen  that  in  the  early  days  of  the 
very  Corinthian  Church  thus  censured  the  ministry 
exercised  by  certain  of  its  “  first-fruits  ”  was  rooted, 
pot  in  apostolic  ordination,  but  in  spontaneous 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  29 


use  of  a  gift  and  impulse  to  serve  the  brethren. 
And  the  impression  of  a  priori  theory  is  further 
enhanced  when  we  note  the  other  arguments  already 
adduced  by  the  Roman  writer.  They  are  Old 
Testament  legal  analogy,  and  the  analogy  of  the 
order  visible  not  only  in  Nature  but  also  in  ordinary 
civil  and  military  administration.  In  other  words, 
we  here  see  the  old  Roman  spirit,  with  its  one-sided 
zeal  for  legal  methods,  encroaching  on  the  spirit 
of  the  Gospel,  which  secures  its  order  by  other 
methods  more  germane  to  the  development  and 
exercise  of  spiritual  personality  in  the  local  brother¬ 
hood.  Thus  the  Epistle  of  Clement  is  significant 
not  so  much  for  the  Church’s  past  as  for  its  future 
developments,  especially  in  the  Latin  world  :  it 
helps  to  explain  why  the  more  primitive  idea  and 
methods  of  Church  and  ministry  did  not  survive 
longer  than  they  actually  did. 

Then  as  regards  Ignatius’  witness  to  the  single 
episcopate  :  there  is  nothing  in  his  evidence  as  to 
the  light  in  which  the  office  was  regarded,  where  it 
as  yet  existed,  which  conflicts  with  the  Protestant 
idea,  save  the  rhetorical  and  one-sided  emphasis 
of  his  language  touching  an  office  in  which  he 
rightly  saw  the  visible  focus  and  guardian  of  each 
church’s  unity  —  then  gravely  menaced  both  by 
heresy  and  schism.  Such  an  emphasis  was  largely 
personal  to  himself  and  his  emotional  tempera¬ 
ment.  But  it  only  makes  more  striking  the  fact 
that  nowhere  does  he  connect  the  claim  made  for  the 


30 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


episcopate,  as  distinct  from  the  presbyterate,  with 
any  special  devolution  from  the  apostles.1  Nor  does 
he  ever  suggest  that  authority  to  administer  the 
Sacraments  depended  in  the  case  of  any  one  on 
episcopal  ordination ;  but  only  that  it  should  not 
be  exercised  without  the  bishop’s  sanction,  in  order 
to  avoid  a  sectional  type  of  communion  service 
destructive  of  Church  unity. 


And  so  we  might  go  on  throughout  the  second 
century,  showing  that  if  we  only  discriminate 
the  points  really  at  issue — of  which  the  orderly 
transmission  of  the  episcopate  or  chief  local  pastor¬ 
ate  is  not  one — primitive  Christianity  as  a  whole, 
during  not  only  that  century  but  also  well  into  the 
next  (though  more  in  some  parts  of  the  Church 
than  in  others),  favours  the  Protestant  idea  both 
as  to  Church  and  ministry.  It  is  true  that  from  the 
end  of  the  second  century  there  is  felt  increasingly 

1  Thus  Dr.  Bright  (op.  cit.  p.  43  note)  writes  :  “  It  is  true  that 
Ignatius  does  not  describe  bishops  as  representatives  of  Apostles  ; 
but  he  does  what  is  more,  he  describes  them  as  representing  the 
highest  spiritual  authority,  that  of  ‘  the  Father  ’  in  His  relation 
to  Christ  (Magn.  3,  6,  13  ;  Trail.  3  ;  Smyrn.  8)  ;  or  of  Christ  either 
in  His  relation  to  His  Apostles,  or  absolutely  (Eph.  6  ;  Trail.  2).” 
But  Dr.  Bright  overlooks  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  “  more  ”  or  less 
of  Ignatius’  metaphors  for  setting  forth  his  sense  of  the  spiritual 
authority  of  the  bishop’s  office  that  is  at  issue,  whether  as  regards 
Ignatius’  witness  or  in  general  :  it  is  the  relation  of  episcopal 
authority,  whether  more  or  less,  to  the  mode  of  episcopal  appoint¬ 
ment,  and  especially  to  the  apostles  as  supposed  channels  of  the 
grace  in  question.  But  this  is  just  the  aspect  of  the  matter  on  which 
Ignatius  is  silent,  and  apparently  not  interested  :  he  refers  all  this 
directly  to  God. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  |31 

the  blending  of  another  idea,  which  presented  both 
in  a  more  legal  and  institutional  light.  But  that  is 
not  surprising  in  view,  e.g .,  of  what  we  have  learnt 
from  Clement’s  Epistle  as  to  the  reaction  of  extra- 
evangelic  ideas  and  analogies  upon  men’s  thoughts 
touching  ideals  so  spiritual  in  their  nature  and  guar¬ 
antees — ideals  turning  on  nothing  less  than  the 
Holy  Spirit’s  abiding  control  of  the  soul  of  Christ’s 
Body,  the  Church.  Still,  enough  has  perhaps  been 
adduced  to  show  how  deeply  rooted  the  Protestant 
ideas  in  question  are  in  early  Christianity,  and  how 
seriously  their  distinctive  emphasis  should  be 
reckoned  with  by  all  who  reverence  the  witness  of 
the  Church’s  history  when  it  stood  most  directly 
under  the  influences  flowing  from  the  historic  life 
and  work  of  the  Church’s  Lord  and  Head. 

There  is  a  further  consideration  favouring  the 
Protestant  idea  of  the  Church,  which  seems  often 
to  be  overlooked  by  those  who  narrow  down  the 
epithets  44  Catholic  ”  and  44  Apostolic  ”  as  applied 
to  the  Church,  so  as  to  become  practically  syn¬ 
onymous  with  4 4  Episcopal.”  It  is  a  religious 
rather  than  historical  consideration,  but  all  the 
more  crucial ;  and  it  is  this.  The  Protestant 
idea  is  the  only  one  which  so  conceives  the 
Church  as  to  justify  its  place  in  one  of  the  articles 
of  the  Creed.  44 1  believe  in  the  Holy  Church  ”  : 
so  ran  a  clause  in  the  earliest  traceable  form 
of  what  developed  into  the  so-called  44  Apostles’ 
Creed.”  Here  the  confession  of  faith  in  the  Church 


32 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


is  of  a  piece  with  the  rest  of  the  Creed,  viz.  a 
body  of  properly  religious  truth,  touching  God 
as  Father  Almighty,  Christ  Jesus  as  His  Son,  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  body.  In  this  sequence  “  the  Holy 
Church  ”  comes  between  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the 
remission  of  sins  as  objects  of  religious  faith ;  and 
in  such  a  way  (with  no  fresh,  formal  statement  of 
belief,  by  repetition  of  “  and  in  ”)  as  to  suggest 
that  it  and  the  other  two  objects  of  faith  which 
follow  are  simply  applications  of  the  faith  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  forms  in  which  His  operations  are, 
or  are  to  be,  realised.  Now  such  a  confession  of 
religious  confidence  must  express  matter  of  spiritual 
insight,  and  not  something  which,  like  the  Church 
as  recognisable  by  the  “  historical  episcopate,”  is 
a  matter  of  everyday  experience  or  human  tradition. 
Faith  as  moral  and  religious  insight  is  needed  to 
perceive  the  Church,  as  a  body  claiming  holiness 
after  the  type  presented  in  Christ,  the  primary 
object  of  Christian  faith.  But,  for  belief  in  the 
Church  as  “holy  ”  and  “  Catholic  ”  or  “  apostolic,” 
because  possessing  an  episcopate  apostolical 
by  succession  through  a  special  mode  of  ordina¬ 
tion,  something  very  different  is  needful,  some¬ 
thing  lying  outside  the  sphere  of  religious  or 
spiritual  faith  as  such,  namely,  mere  belief  in 
tradition  on  a  matter  of  history,  or  at  best,  ability 
to  test  and  verify  the  historical  evidence  for  one¬ 
self.  Surely  neither  of  these  is  of  the  nature  of 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  33 


“  faith  55  in  any  sense  in  which  Christ  asked  or 
asks  for  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  kind  of  faith  which  the 
Protestant  idea  of  the  Church  demands  of  those 
who  truly  believe  in  the  Church  of  Christ — holy, 
Apostolic,  Catholic — is  essentially  moral  and  re¬ 
ligious  in  its  nature  and  origin,  based  on  the  Church’s 
spiritual  “  fruits.”  It  is  strictly  analogous,  in  fact, 
to  faith  in  Jesus  Himself,  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
as  reached  by  His  original  disciples  and  by  real 
disciples  ever  since  ;  that  is,  it  rests  on  the  in¬ 
trinsic  divinity  visible  under  human  forms  which, 
alike  in  Head  and  Body,  test  and  deepen  the  quality 
of  faith  in  the  very  act  of  apprehending  the  Divine 
by  latent,  spiritual  affinity.  This  is  what  Pro-*! 
testant  theology  means  by  its  doctrine  that  the 
inner  witness  of  the  “  Holy  Spirit  ”  ( testimonium 
Spiritus  Sancti  internum)  is  the  ultimate  ground 
of  real  faith,  and  not  mere  historical  and  external 
forms  of  witness,  whether  the  Bible  or  the  Church. 
This  is  a  position  unaffected  by  any  valid  criticism 
of  the  Bible  or  the  Church  ;  for  it  is  the  only  one 
which  does  not  involve,  for  the  religious  man  at 
least,  arguing  in  a  circle.  For  neither  Bible  nor 
Church  can  be  known  to  be  a  true  witness  of 
Christ ,  before  Christ  has  authenticated  Himself 
on  His  own  merits  to  the  soul’s  deepest  needs  and 
instincts.  In  this  essential  because  religious  respect, 
then,  we  can  claim  that  the  Protestant  idea  of  the 
Church  is  most  continuous  with  the  spirit  of  early 
3 


34 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Christianity,  as  indicated  even  in  a  widespread 


creed  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 


Yet  even  this  confirmation  of  the  findings  of 
our  more  strictly  historical  survey  does  not  exhaust 
their  religious  authentication.  They  are  rooted 
not  only  in  the  past,  but  still  more  in  the  experi¬ 
ence  of  modern  Christendom,  and  particularly  of 
English-speaking  Christianity  to-day,  viewed  in  the 
light  of  a  serious  belief  in  the  Divine  Providence. 

Consider  the  Protestant  idea  of  the  Church  in  its 
present  form,  now  freed  from  earlier  confusions  of 
thought  due  mainly  to  an  exaggerated  notion  of 
the  influence  of  the  intellectual  element  in  Christian 
faith,  whether  for  weal  or  woe,  an  error  inherited 
from  “  Catholic  ”  orthodoxy.  We  may  claim  for  it 
that  it  can  most  easily,  without  any  compromis¬ 
ing  expedient  like  the  “  uncovenanted  mercies 
of  God,”  find  room  for  the  facts  of  Christlike  life 
and  service  found  in  all  communions  which  “  name 
the  name  of  Christ  in  sincerity.”  In  a  word,  it  is 
the  most  truly  catholic  of  Church  ideas  ;  and  the 
practical  attitude  of  those  holding  it  is  steadily, 
even  rapidly,  conforming  more  and  more  to  its  full 
scope  and  grandeur  by  fraternal  recognition  and 
love,  especially  on  the  foreign  mission  field.  There 
Christians  as  such  feel  themselves  face  to  face  with 
one  and  the  same  kingdom  of  evil,  and  realise  that 
they  are  essaying  the  same  task  of  “  making  Christ 
King  ”  in  essentially  the  same  sense  and  in  reliance 
on  essentially  the  same  Divine  resources.  Yet  on 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MINISTRY  35 


those  far  mission  fields,  where  the  essential  issues 
stand  out  more  clearly  to  the  average  Christian  eye 
than  here  at  home,  there  is  a  line  of  demarcation 
on  principle  which  hinders  practical  co-operation. 
There,  as  here,  it  is  the  traditional  claim  put  for¬ 
ward  for  “  the  historic  Episcopate  55  and  its  supposed 
exclusive  possession  of  valid  or  sure  sacramental 
communion  with  the  one  Head  of  all  Christians 
alike.  Truly  an  astounding  claim  in  the  face  of 
patent  facts,  which  seem  so  impressively  to 
indicate  like  powers  as  flowing  from  that  Head 
through  the  lives  and  labours  of  the  workers  of 
other  communions,  while  yet  the  Eucharist  is,  by 
those  who  urge  the  claim,  esteemed  the  chief 
ordinary  channel  of  grace  for  the  refreshing  and 
invigorating  of  Christ’s  soldiers.  Surely  the  time 
is  coming,  and  is  nearer  than  some  realise,  when 
those  who  have  faith  and  courage  enough  to  read 
the  Divine  “  signs  of  the  times,”  as  Jesus  reproached 
his  generation  for  failing  to  do,  will  frankly  recog¬ 
nise,  and  act  on  the  recognition,  that  the  chief 
responsibility  for  continued  non-communion  be¬ 
tween  bodies  of  Christians  who  bear  all  the  intrinsic 
spiritual  marks  of  membership  in  Christ’s  One 
Body,  the  Church  as  visible  on  earth,  must  lie  with 
those  who  persist  in  adding  to  His  own  conditions 
of  unity  in  the  one  Flock,  namely,  faith  in  the  One 
Shepherd  and  love  to  all  those  who  manifest  this 
faith  in  life,  acceptance  of  a  special  type  of  Epis¬ 
copate  as  essential  to  “  fulness  of  spiritual  and 


36 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


sacramental  life.”  Such  an  office  has,  indeed, 
been  associated  with  the  Church’s  corporate  life 
for  the  greater  part  of  its  history  till  some  four 
centuries  ago  ;  but  its  past  is  one  characterised 
by  conditions  very  different  from  the  present,  and 
in  the  main  by  a  lower  level  of  individuality  and 
maturity  in  Christian  experience  among  the  rank  and 
file  of  the  Church’s  members.  Accordingly,  while 
the  claim  to  exclusive  Divine  commission  has  already 
been  shown  to  be  at  least  dubious  in  its  historical 
credentials,  the  appeal  to  prescriptive  right  on  the 
score  of  past  experience  is  far  less  weighty  than  has 
often  been  supposed,  and  is  daily  losing  in  weight 
as  compared  with  growing  modern  experience. 
How  much  this  is  the  case,  it  will  be  the  aim  of  the 
series  of  lectures  on  “  The  History  and  Witness  of 
Evangelical  Christianity  ”  since  the  Reformation, 
to  which  the  present  lecture  is  introductory,  to  make 
more  manifest  to  all  who  care  to  follow  their  story. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

BY 

A.  J.  CARLYLE,  D.Litt. 


37 


Evangelicals  and  the  idea  of  the  Church — The  position  at  the 
Reformation — The  relation  of  the  Church  of  England  to 
the  Reformed  Churches — Causes  of  the  decline  of  this 
relationship — The  Evangelical  revival. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


I  am  grateful  to  those  who  have  been  so  kind  as 
to  allow  me  to  speak  to  you,  in  this  course  of  ad¬ 
dresses,  on  the  position  of  the  Church  of  England 
in  relation  to  the  Evangelical  conception  of  religion. 
I  think  that  I  have  the  profoundest  respect  for 
the  religious  convictions  and  tendencies  of  those 
members  of  the  Church  of  England  who  might 
not  wish  to  designate  themselves  by  such  a  phrase 
as  Evangelical ;  and  I  would  recognise,  and  frankly, 
that  within  the  English  Church  such  men  often  stand 
for  principles  of  immense  significance,  which  those 
who  have  been  more  specifically  called  Evangelical 
have  often  in  some  degree  neglected  or  underesti¬ 
mated.  The  sense  of  the  corporate  and  social  char¬ 
acter  of  religion,  the  idea  of  the  Church,  have  often 
been  little  apprehended  by  Evangelicals,  and  High 
Churchmen  have  done  much  to  restore  them,  even 
though  the  particular  terms  under  which  they  have 
done  this  seem  to  us  incorrect  and  inadequate  ;  while 
the  conception  of  the  perpetual  organic  development 
of  ideas  and  forms  of  belief  has  been  set  forward 
by  the  Broad  Church  school,  and  without  this  the 
religious  life  must  become  fossilised  and  unmeaning. 

39 


40 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


And  yet  when  all  this  has  been  said,  I  must  confess 
that  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Evangelical  tradition 
is  nearest  to  the  essence  of  the  distinctive  position 
taken  up  by  the  Church  of  England  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  represents  most  characteristically  the 
essential  conception  of  religion  in  England.  For  I 
think  that  behind  all  the  varieties  and  divergences 
of  English  religion  there  is  a  quality  which  is  char¬ 
acteristic,  and  this  quality,  whether  in  the  Church 
of  England  or  in  the  Free  Churches,  finds  its  best 
expression  under  some  such  term  as  that  of  Evan¬ 
gelical  religion.  The  northern  peoples,  as  is  very 
evident  from  their  literature,  have  in  the  last 
centuries  represented  the  most  imaginative,  the 
most  poetical  strain  in  European  civilisation,  and 
their  religion  has  the  same  character.  It  is  this 
imaginative  and  poetical  character  which  tends  to 
make  the  Englishman  in  his  religion  so  indifferent 
to  the  merely  external  effect  and  decoration,  so 
indifferent  to  ritual,  so  independent  of  external 
beauty,  and  even,  sometimes,  of  external  comeliness. 
The  heavenly  vision  within,  the  world  of  nature 
without,  these  are  enough  for  him  ;  and  his  religion 
is  distracted  rather  than  stimulated  by  those  external 
conditions  which,  as  it  is  suggested  at  least,  have 
so  great  an  effect  upon  the  minds  of  other  people. 
A  certain  gravity,  a  certain  sober  dignity,  these  are 
almost  all  that  the  Englishman,  even  of  the  English 
Church,  values  in  the  externals  of  religion.  And 
this  just  because  his  religion  is  imaginative  and 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


4i 


profound.  It  is  a  singular  and  superficial  delusion 
to  think  that  the  poetic  temper  in  religion 
tends  to  the  appreciation  of  the  external  forms 
with  which  religion  may  clothe  itself.  The  natural 
religion  of  Englishmen  is  like  the  poetry  of  Words¬ 
worth,  which  finds  its  heaven  in  the  simplest 
human  hearts,  and  the  infinite  in  the  tiny  flower. 

As  it  seems  to  me  it  is  this  conception  of 
religion  which  marks  the  characteristic  quality 
of  the  temper  of  the  Reformation,  and  not  least  in 
England.  In  no  country  in  Europe  was  the  great 
conception  of  Luther,  of  the  primary  significance  of 
justification  by  faith,  more  fully  appreciated  and 
more  warmly  held.  And  it  is  just  in  this  doctrine 
that  the  Reformation  found  its  most  profound 
meaning.  It  is,  indeed,  here  that  we  find  that 
positive  doctrine  of  the  supreme  significance  of  the 
internal  in  religion  in  which  the  deepest  meaning 
of  the  Reformation  lies.  For  the  Reformation  has 
a  meaning  which  is  distinctive  and  definite,  and  by 
which  it  is  to  be  distinguished  in  the  great  revival 
of  religion,  which  after  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century  dominated  Southern  as  well  as  Northern 
Europe,  the  Roman  Catholic  countries  as  well  as 
those  which  had  become  Protestant.  There  was  a 
real  quickening  of  the  moral  and  religious  life  of 
Europe,  and  everywhere  this  produced  results 
both  on  the  national  and  the  individual  life  of 
immense  significance.  The  religious  and  moral 


42  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

fervour  which  is  represented  in  Northern  Europe 
by  Luther  and  Calvin,  by  Knox  and  Cromwell,  is 
reflected  in  Southern  Europe  by  Loyola,  and  Xavier, 
and  Charles  Borromeo.  The  great  revival  is  more 
significant  than  any  one  form  of  it,  and  has  left 
deep  and  abiding  traces  in  European  life. 

We  must,  however,  also  recognise  that  the 
Reformation  had  about  it  something  characteristic, 
which  distinguished  it  from  the  revival  of  religion 
in  Roman  Catholic  countries,  and  this  found  its 
best  expression  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  the 
doctrine  of  faith  and  justification.  This  is,  indeed, 
the  positive  and  fundamental  conception  of  Luther. 
He  was  not  primarily  a  negative  thinker ;  indeed,  it 
may  perhaps  be  said  that  he  was  driven  into  nega¬ 
tion,  into  the  denial  of  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
and  finally  even  of  the  Church,  because  he  found 
that  his  great  positive  doctrine  of  faith  would  not 
be  accepted.  Luther’s  own  experience,  which,  like 
that  of  St.  Paul,  no  doubt  was  more  fully  developed 
in  some  directions  than  that  of  the  normal  man,  was 
yet  only  the  vivid  apprehension  of  the  necessary  and 
normal  truth  that  a  man  once  convinced  of  his  faults 
and  imperfections,  once  convicted  of  sin,  to  use  the 
later  phrase,  can  never  find  peace  in  his  own  external 
actions,  or  even  in  the  order  and  protection  of  the 
Church,  but  only  in  the  inner  apprehension  of  the 
voice  of  God,  speaking  peace  and  forgiveness  to  his 
soul  in  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  principle  upon 
which  the  whole  religious  movement  of  Northern 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


43 

Europe  turned  ;  and  it  is  to  this  that  from  time  to 
time  it  has  turned  back  again.  It  is,  indeed,  easy 
enough  to  see  that  the  argumentation  about  this 
was  often  arid  and  lifeless ;  but  the  principle  of  the 
freedom  of  the  Christian  man,  of  the  free  and 
immediate  relation  of  the  soul  with  God,  has 
remained,  and  remains  still,  the  primary  charac¬ 
teristic  of  the  religion  of  the  reformed  countries. 

I  have  already  said  that  there  was  no  country 
in  which  this  principle  was  more  warmly  received 
than  in  England.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the 
revolt  of  a  man  like  Latimer  against  the  received 
religion  was  almost  entirely  governed  by  his 
impatience  and  anger  at  a  system  which  confused 
the  external  discharge  of  religious  exercises  with 
real  religion.  And  I  do  not  know  that  any  better 
brief  statement  of  the  whole  new  conception  of 
religion  can  be  found  than  that  which  is  contained 
in  the  Homily,  or  sermon,  “Of  the  Salvation  of 
Mankind,”  to  which  the  ninth  Article  of  the  Church 
of  England  refers  us. 

“  Justification  is  not  the  office  of  man  but  of 
God  ;  for  man  cannot  make  himself  righteous  by 
his  own  works,  neither  in  part,  nor  in  the  whole. 
.  .  .  But  justification  is  the  office  of  God  only, 
and  is  not  a  thing  which  we  render  unto  Him,  but 
which  we  receive  of  Him,  not  which  we  give  to  Him, 
but  which  we  take  of  Him,  by  His  free  mercy,  and 
by  the  only  merits  of  His  most  dearly  beloved  Son, 
our  only  Redeemer,  Saviour,  and  Justifier,  Jesus 


44  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

Christ.  .  .  .  These  great  and  merciful  benefits  of 
God,  if  they  be  well  considered,  do  neither  minister 
unto  us  occasion  to  be  idle,  and  to  live  without 
doing  any  good  works,  neither  yet  stir  us  up  by 
any  means  to  do  evil  things  ;  but  contrariwise,  if 
we  be  not  desperate  persons,  and  our  hearts  harder 
than  stones,  they  move  us  to  render  ourselves  unto 
God  wholly,  with  all  our  will,  hearts,  might,  and 
power,  to  serve  Him  in  all  good  deeds,  obeying 
His  commandments  during  our  lives.” 

What  is  here  set  out  briefly  is  the  doctrine  of 
all  the  great  English  religious  writers  and  thinkers 
of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  the  doctrine  of  justifica¬ 
tion  by  faith  is  assumed  by  them  as  the  very  centre 
of  the  new  movement  in  religion. 

It  is  from  this  standpoint,  and  from  this  only, 
that  we  can  properly  appreciate  the  relation  of  the 
Church  of  England  to  the  other  Reformed  Churches. 
In  later  days  these  close  relations  have  often,  un¬ 
happily,  been  relaxed  ;  and  there  are  Churchmen 
so  forgetful  of  the  tradition  of  the  Church  as  to 
claim  rather  to  relate  themselves  in  Europe  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  than  to  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Germany,  or  France,  or  Italy,  or  Spain. 
I  fear  that  there  are  not  wanting  those  in  the 
Church  who  look  upon  this  attitude  as  normal  and 
natural.  But,  indeed,  it  is  wholly  abnormal,  and 
it  is  completely  out  of  accord  with  the  principles 
and  with  the  traditions  of  the  reformed  Church 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


45 


of  England.  We  were  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven¬ 
teenth  centuries  in  communion  with  the  reformed 
churches  of  Europe,  and  we  are  still,  properly 
speaking,  in  communion  with  them  to-day. 

And  the  historical  reason  of  this  lay  primarily 
in  the  fact  that  we  held  in  common  those  con¬ 
ceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  spiritual  life  which 
had  been  restated  by  Luther,  and  had  entered 
into  the  religious  experience  of  English  Christians. 
We  had  then,  as  we  have  to-day,  certain  differences 
with  regard  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the 
Christian  society  ;  but  these  differences  were  then 
esteemed  as  trivial  compared  with  the  real  unity 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  spiritual  experience. 

Let  me  remind  you  of  some  phrases  in  Jewel’s 
Defence  of  the  Apology  : — 

44  Before  the  time  that  God’s  holy  will  was  that 
Doctor  Luther  should  begin,  after  so  long  a  time 
of  ignorance,  to  publish  the  gospel  of  Christ,  there 
was  a  general  quietness,  I  grant,  such  as  in  the 
night-season,  when  folk  lie  asleep.  Yet,  I  think, 
to  continue  such  quietness,  no  wise  man  will  wish 
to  sleep  still.  You  say,  4  They  have  forsaken  the 
Catholic  Church  :  they  went  out  from  us  who  were 
not  of  us.’  Nay,  rather,  M.  Harding,  we  are  returned 
to  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  and  have  forsaken 
you  because  you  have  manifestly  forsaken  the 
ways  of  God.”  1 

Or  again — 44  These  worthy  and  learned  fathers, 
1  Jewel,  Defence  of  the  Apology,  Cambridge,  1848,  pp.  174,  175,] 


46 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Luther  and  Zwinglius,  and  other  like  godly  and 
zealous  men,  were  appointed  of  God,  not  to  erect 
a  new  church,  but  to  reform  the  old.”  1 

I  do  not  mean  that  the  Church  of  England  had  no 
characteristic  differences  from  the  other  Reformed 
Churches  ;  it  is  obvious  that  such  differences 
existed  then  as  they  exist  to-day.  The  Church 
of  England  retained  the  traditional  organisation 
of  Church  government,  and  claimed  that  this  was 
a  just  and  lawful  order  ;  and  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Ordination  services  it  claims  that  this  was  based 
upon  the  example  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  And  with 
this  order  it  retained  many  customs  and  observ¬ 
ances,  of  which  some  were  set  aside  by  some  of  the 
Reformed  Churches.  But  the  representative  writers 
of  the  Church  of  England  did  not  consider  them¬ 
selves  to  be  separated  from  the  Reformed  Churches 
by  any  barriers  of  doctrine.  Let  me  read  to  you 
some  famous  words  of  Hooker  upon  the  controversy 
with  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
Holy  Communion. 

“  This  was  it  that  some  did  exceedingly  fear,  lest 
Zwinglius  and  (Ecolampadius  would  bring  to  pass, 
that  men  should  account  of  this  sacrament,  but  only 
as  of  a  shadow,  destitute,  empty,  and  void  of  Christ. 
But  seeing  that  by  opening  the  several  opinions 
which  have  been  held,  they  are  grown,  for  aught  I 
can  see,  on  all  sides  at  the  length  to  a  general  agree¬ 
ment  concerning  that  which  alone  is  material, 

1  Jewel,  Defence  of  the  Apology,  Cambridge,  1848,  p.  213. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


47 


namely,  the  real  participation  of  Christ  and  of  life 
in  His  body  and  blood  by  means  of  this  sacrament ; 
wherefore  should  the  world  continue  still  distracted 
and  rent  with  so  manifold  contentions,  when  there 
remaineth  now  no  controversy,  saving  only  about 
the  subject  where  Christ  is  ?  Yea,  even  in  this 
point  no  man  denieth  but  that  the  soul  of  man  is 
the  receptacle  of  Christ’s  presence.”  1 

Here,  then,  is  the  fundamental  fact  about  the 
historical  position  of  the  Church  of  England,  that 
it  conceived  itself  to  be  united  with  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Europe,  not  only  negatively  as  repudiat¬ 
ing  the  supremacy  of  Rome,  but  much  more 
positively,  as  holding  with  them  that  the  centre 
of  the  Christian  life  lies  in  the  experience  of  the 
human  heart,  of  the  reconciliation  of  man  to 
God  through  that  faith  which  forgets  the  poor 
and  humble  goodness  which  is  in  ourselves,  and 
lives  upon  the  reality  of  God’s  forgiveness  and 
grace. 

It  is  out  of  this  fundamental  unity  that  there 
naturally  arose  the  intimate  relations  of  friendship 
and  communion  between  the  Church  of  England  and 
the  Reformed  Churches.  Let  me  again  remind  you 
that,  while  many  Anglicans  in  the  seventeenth 
century  began  to  move  away  from  the  position  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  even  then — even  in  the 
height  of  the  struggle  with  other  forms  of  religious 
organisation  in  England — the  leaders  even  of  the  new 
1  Hooker,  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  v.  67.  2, 


48 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


movement  continued  to  recognise  the  close  relation 
of  the  English  Church  with  the  Reformed  Churches  : 
such  a  man  as  Cosin  plainly  urged  upon  English 
Churchmen  that  they  should  communicate  with 
the  French  Reformed  Church. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  as  time  passed  these 
relations  became  less  intimate,  that  the  reformed 
Church  of  England  and  the  Reformed  Churches  in 
Europe  gradually  fell  apart,  though  it  must  be 
remembered  that  at  no  time  has  there  been  any 
formal  or  official  determination  of  the  old  and 
natural  relation  of  friendship  and  sympathy.  The 
religious  life  and  literature  of  England  and  of  the 
reformed  countries  have  always  continued  to  be 
closely  related,  and  to  exercise  upon  each  other  a 
very  powerful  and  intimate  influence.  But  it  re¬ 
remains  that  we  have  to  a  certain  extent  fallen 
apart  :  the  causes  of  this  are  complex. 

No  doubt  one  great  cause  of  this  has  been 
the  fact  that  the  progress  of  nationalism,  which 
was  for  a  moment  arrested  or  delayed  by  the 
Reformation,  has  resumed  its  inevitable  course  ; 
the  European  nationalities  have  been  in  the  last 
four  centuries  rapidly  developing  their  various 
characteristics  ;  and  in  religion,  as  in  the  other 
aspects  of  life,  it  has  been  difficult  to  retain  the  sense 
of  unity.  I  think,  however,  that  it  is  true  to  say 
that,  until  well  on  in  the  nineteenth  century,  no 
English  Churchmen  would  have  dreamed  of  turning 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


49 


to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  Continent 
rather  than  to  the  Reformed  Churches  ;  it  would 
have  seemed  to  them  wholly  unnatural,  and  I  think 
that  is  still  true  of  the  vast  majority.  There  is, 
however,  no  doubt  that  the  sense  of  solidarity  and 
community  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
Reformed  Churches  is  weaker  than  in  the  sixteenth 
century. 

I  think  that  this  may  be  partly  due  again  to  the 
reflected  influence  of  our  own  divisions  in  this 
country.  The  Elizabethan  Englishman  did  not 
recognise  as  real  or  permanently  significant  the 
tendencies  to  division  which  from  the  beginning 
existed  in  the  reformed  Church  of  England.  I 
do  not  indeed  suppose  that  any  religious  party  in 
the  country  at  first  thought  of  a  continuing  division 
in  religious  opinion  and  organisation.  The  in¬ 
tolerance  of  different  schools  was  in  large  measure 
the  natural  condition  of  men  to  whom  the  notion  of 
varieties  of  religious  organisation  and  beliefs  within 
one  community  was  a  thing  strange  and  unfamiliar. 
It  was  only  after  a  long  struggle,  after  a  hundred 
years  of  alternating  power  in  different  schools  of 
religion,  that  Englishmen  slowly  and  reluctantly 
acquiesced  in  the  permanent  existence  of  different 
religious  societies  in  the  one  country ;  and  un¬ 
happily  the  memories  of  that  hundred  years’ 
struggle  were  hard  and  bitter,  and  led  men  for  a 
long  time  to  overstate  rather  than  to  understate 
their  actual  differences. 


4 


50 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


I  venture  to  think  that  we  shall  be  brought 
together  again  by  the  gradual  influence  of  the  same 
principle  which  united  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  I  venture  to  think  that  it  is 
just  the  revived  and  growing  sense  of  the  supreme 
significance  of  the  religious  experience  in  the  human 
soul,  which  will  bring  Christian  men  in  this  country 
together,  as  it  is  indeed  doing  already.  For  I 
think  that  once  again  English  Christians  have  come 
through  a  common  experience,  that  once  again 
religion  in  this  country  has  been  quickened  and 
revived  under  the  terms  of  a  movement  which  has 
affected  us  all. 

The  careless  observer  may  find  in  the  great 
movement  of  the  eighteenth  century  only  a  tem¬ 
porary  and  superficial  revival  of  religion,  and  may 
even  think  it  mainly  remarkable  as  leading  to  a 
further  division  among  Christian  men.  I  think 
that  if  we  look  closer  we  shall  recognise  in  the 
Methodist  and  Evangelical  revival  the  beginnings 
of  a  movement  whose  greater  effects  we  are  only 
just  beginning  to  see. 

What  was  the  real  meaning  of  the  great  Methodist 
movement,  of  the  Evangelical  revival  in  the  Church 
of  England  and  the  Free  Churches  ?  What  was 
it  but  the  recovery  of  the  fundamental  idea  of 
the  sixteenth  century  ? — the  recovery,  under  the 
new  terms  of  conviction  of  sin  and  conversion, 
of  the  conception  of  a  religion  of  experience. 
The  history  of  that  which  was,  to  John  Wesley, 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


51 


the  beginning  of  a  new  life,  is  singularly  illu¬ 
minating. 

For  many  years  before  the  day  of  what  he 
looked  upon  as  his  conversion,  he  and  his  friends 
in  Oxford  had  been  striving  for  the  attainment 
of  a  deeper  and  better  religious  life.  The  little 
society  of  Methodists  who  met  at  Lincoln  College 
and  in  other  places  strove  to  make  their  life  and 
religion  real.  They  revived  the  rule  of  prayer 
and  meditation  ;  they  spent  their  time  in  visiting 
the  sick  and  the  needy  and  the  prisoner  ;  they 
turned  from  what  seemed  to  them  the  vanities 
and  noise  of  the  world,  that  they  might  find  and 
serve  God.  But  it  was  not  there  nor  thus  that 
John  Wesley,  as  he  thought,  found  the  light ;  but 
among  the  Moravians  in  London,  those  Moravians 
who  had  maintained  and  revived  something  of  the 
simplicity  of  the  life  of  faith  and  illumination.  It 
was  in  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  and  peace 
which  is  in  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  His  cross,  that 
John  Wesley  found  the  light.  And  it  was  in  that 
light,  and  by  the  power  of  this  experience,  that  he 
turned  England  upside  down. 

Again  it  might  seem  to  the  hasty  observer  as 
though  this  movement  only  affected  a  section  of 
English  Christianity,  and  that  it  produced  a  further 
division  among  Christian  men.  The  Methodist 
Society  endeavoured  to  find  a  place  in  the  Church 
of  England,  but  finally  became  a  separate  organisa¬ 
tion.  And  it  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  effects  of 


52 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


the  movement  were  for  a  long  time  confined  to 
the  Free  Churches,  and  to  a  comparatively  small 
section  of  the  Church  of  England.  But  the  truth 
is  that  these  were  only  the  first  results  of  the 
movement.  Gradually  all  this  has  changed. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  characteristic  ideas 
and  phrases  of  the  Evangelical  movement  were 
distasteful  and  repellent  to  the  great  majority  of 
English  Churchmen ;  when  even  good  and  honest 
men  could  talk  contemptuously  of  “  sanctified 
cobblers,”  and  suspiciously  of  the  conception  of 
conversion.  But  all  this  has  passed  away. 

I  am  not  here  considering  the  whole  meaning 
and  significance  of  the  Tractarian  movement. 
There  are  no  doubt  aspects  of  that  great  movement 
which  have,  in  some  degree,  widened  the  gulf 
between  Christian  men  in  England;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  also  true  that  it  was  through  the 
Tractarian  movement  that  the  evangelical  temper 
and  ideas  have  gradually  come  to  make  their  way 
to  acceptance  among  the  great  mass  of  devout 
Church  of  England  people.  The  opposition  has 
passed  away,  and  we  now  find  men,  who  are  ecclesi¬ 
astically  very  far  removed  from  each  other,  domin¬ 
ated  by  the  same  spirit,  and  even  using  the  same 
languages  as  the  just  and  natural  embodiment  of  the 
most  profound  religious  convictions  and  experience. 

I  venture  to  hope,  and  to  believe,  that  in  this 
great  and  profound  apprehension  of  the  spiritual 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 


53 


life,  in  this  experience  of  the  soul,  we  have  a  great 
and  reconciling  force.  I  think  that  gradually 
it  is  acting  as  a  solvent  of  the  spirit  of  separa¬ 
tion  and  division.  I  think  that  even  though  we 
may  yet  see  no  clear  solution  of  the  ecclesiastical 
difficulties  which  separate  men,  yet  we  have  in  the 
religion  of  a  common  experience  a  power  which  is 
drawing  men  together,  and  through  which  in  the 
end  we  may  find  the  way  of  peace  and  brotherhood. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES 

BY 

JOHN  OMAN,  D.D, 


§5 


Calvinistic  doctrine  —  Puritan  worship  —  National  religion — 
Government  by  elders — Theory  of  office — The  Church 
non-legal,  apostolic,  and  historical. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES 


From  the  syllabus  of  these  lectures  I  might  seem  to 
be  standing  here  as  a  representative  of  the  whole 
body  of  Presbyterians.  Apart  from  the  impossi¬ 
bility  of  any  one  representing  anything  so  varied, 
I  have  never  attained  the  dignity  of  being  represen¬ 
tative  of  the  smallest  of  Presbyterian  communities. 
Having  been  so  long  one  of  the  Diaspora  here  in 
England,  a  remnant  scattered  and  peeled,  I  cannot 
even  represent  with  effectiveness  that  spirit  which 
unkind  people  would  call  a  good  conceit  of  our¬ 
selves,  and  sympathetic  people  a  confidence  in  our 
mission,  which  arises  from  the  sense  of  being  the 
largest  Protestant  denomination.  Even  if  the 
claim  be  true,  it  has  become  for  me  very  distant 
and  impersonal ;  but  we  are  not  without  those  who 
conceive  the  General  Assembly  and  Church  of  the 
Firstborn  after  a  Presbyterian  model,  with  the  Pope 
converted  to  the  equality  of  the  ministry  and 
properly  ordained  by  his  brethren  as  moderator. 
Against  these  limitations  I  can  only  set  the  advan¬ 
tage  which  has  come  to  me  from  spending  half 
my  life  in  close  contact  with  all  forms  of  religious 
life  in  England,  and  with  an  interest  which  has 

5? 


58 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


never  flagged.  As  these  lectures  are  an  attempt 
to  express  the  mind  of  English  Protestantism, 
that  knowledge  and  sympathy  may  go  far,  however, 
to  counterbalance  my  manifest  deficiencies. 

Yet  this  is  not  by  way  of  apology  for  being  here. 
For  that  there  is  only  one  reason.  No  one  better 
could  be  laid  hands  on  just  at  the  moment.  I  only 
wish  to  afford  you  the  means  of  checking  the 
personal  denominator,  so  that,  if  I  seem  to  you  at 
times  to  speak  of  Presbyterianism  not  as  it  has  ever 
existed,  but  as  I  conceive  it  ought  to  be,  you  will 
know  where  you  are.  You  must  not,  however, 
complain,  because  the  Church,  in  distinction  from 
all  other  societies,  is  primarily  an  ideal  fellowship, 
and  nothing  is  more  important  about  any  denomina¬ 
tion  than  the  ideal  of  itself  which  it  has  created 
in  the  minds  of  its  ordinary,  non-ecclesiastical 
members. 

Four  leading  characters  marked  the  old  Presby¬ 
terianism.  They  were  (1)  Calvinistic  Doctrine, 
(2)  Puritan  Worship,  (3)  National  Religion,  (4) 
Government  by  Elders.  The  simplest  way  of 
treating  our  subject  will  be  to  ask  in  succession 
how  far  these  characters  have  been  modified. 

1.  How  far  are  the  Presbyterian  Churches  still 
Calvinistic  in  doctrine  ? 

All  English-speaking  Presbyterian  Churches  still 
accept  in  some  way  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith.  The  Confession  is  entirely  Calvinistic, 
its  whole  system  being  based  upon  a  theological 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  59 


doctrine  of  election.  Nearly  every  Presbyterian 
Church,  however,  has  in  some  way  limited  its 
adhesion.  We  here  in  England  have  attempted 
a  shorter  creed,  but  no  other  Church,  so  far  as 
I  know,  has  followed  our  example.  The  usual 
method  has  been  to  accept  the  Confession  with  a 
declaration  of  the  sense  in  which  it  is  understood 
and  the  extent  to  which  it  is  taken.  In  some  cases 
an  extreme  doctrine  of  election  has  been  definitely 
excluded,  and  even  where  that  has  not  been  done, 
the  effect  is  in  every  case  the  same.  The  result 
has  been  a  greater  modification  of  the  whole  creed 
than  any  of  the  Churches  have  so  far  realised. 

Yet  the  change  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as  if  it 
meant  that  something  more  Arminian  had  been 
preferred  to  the  old  Calvinism,  as  if  the  emphasis 
in  salvation  has  been  transferred  somewhat  from 
God  and  placed  more  on  human  co-operation. 
The  ground  tone  of  the  piety  remains  unaltered. 
An  evangelicalism  which  seeks  assurance  either 
in  our  own  emotion  or  in  our  own  action  is  still 
alien  to  the  people  who  give  religious  character  to 
the  Presbyterian  Churches.  For  their  own  salva¬ 
tion,  as  for  all  else,  the  instinct  of  devout  souls  is  to 
fall  back  on  God  simply  and  in  grave  silence.  You 
may  think  that  that  merely  describes  the  instinct 
of  all  genuine  piety,  but  the  difference  between  this 
type  and  that,  say,  which  is  bred  by  the  Methodist 
evangel  or  the  High  Church  discipline  is  easy  to 
feel,  if  not  to  express. 


60 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


What  has  come  to  pass  is  the  recognition  that  the 
hard  and  precise  theological  doctrine  of  the  Con¬ 
fession  is  not  an  adequate  expression  of  that  temper. 
It  was  an  attempt  to  give  dogmatic  definiteness 
to  the  Creed,  dogmatic  authority  to  the  faith,  dog¬ 
matic  finality  to  salvation,  the  desire  for  which  men 
had  brought  with  them  out  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
In  theology,  if  not  in  religion,  it  made  God’s 
omniscience  and  omnipotence  the  last  words  in  His 
relation  to  man.  The  difference  is  that  we  have 
come  to  realise  that  in  a  relation  so  personal  as 
man’s  dependence  upon  God  the  last  words  are  love 
and  patience,  and  that  that  is  far  too  great  a  matter 
to  be  expressed  in  any  formula.  But  there  is  no 
sense  that  the  dependence  on  God  is  less  or  that  it 
would  be  better  expressed  by  assigning  so  much  to 
God  and  so  much  to  man. 

2.  With  the  Puritanism  of  our  worship  it  might 
seem  that  time  has  dealt  still  more  hardly. 

Are  we  not  in  architecture  much  like  our  neigh¬ 
bours,  limited  in  display  only  by  lack  of  means,  and 
alas !  not  always  by  that  ?  Have  we  not  acres  of 
stained  glass,  mediaeval  in  everything  but  quality  ? 
What  hymn  books  contain  more  elaborate  music  ? 
Are  not  good  organs  more  common  among  us  than 
good  organists  ?  Is  it  not  whispered  that  some  among 
us  use  a  liturgy  which  only  want  of  power,  not  want 
of  will,  makes  less  stately  than  better-known  forms 
of  common  prayer  ?  Have  not  various  Presby¬ 
terian  Churches  published  forms  of  worship  which 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  61 


are  not  more  widely  used  only  because  they  do  not 
deserve  to  be  ? 

In  all  this  we  are  not  different  from  other  Puritan 
Churches.  And  the  causes  are  the  same — partly 
failure  to  realise  the  aim  of  Puritanism  in  subordin¬ 
ating  the  Church  as  a  building  and  a  ritual  to  the 
Church  as  a  society  and  a  life,  and  partly  a  success 
which  tends  to  defeat  itself.  When  the  fervour  of 
the  religious  impulse  of  Puritanism  had  cooled,  the 
asceticism  and  self-discipline  it  had  taught  men  were 
applied  to  the  business  of  succeeding  in  life.  Con¬ 
sequently  a  very  large  number  of  our  people  have, 
mainly  through  education  and  self-denial,  prospered 
in  the  world.  The  result  is  a  highly  respectable 
and  in  many  ways  most  admirable  person  whose 
position  in  our  churches,  however,  is  apt  to  be 
determined  more  by  his  purse  than  his  piety. 
Partly  he  has  old  troublesome  associations  which 
upbraid  a  selfish  prosperity,  and  make  him  feel  more 
comfortable  in  his  own  spacious  home  when  he  has 
helped  to  build  a  stately  house  of  prayer.  If  he  is  a 
religious  person,  which  is  usually  the  case,  he  does 
not  want  to  live  in  a  ceiled  house  while  the  temple 
of  God  lies  desolate  ;  if  he  is  not,  he  still  wants  to 
have  his  church,  like  everything  about  him,  up  to 
the  mark.  Where  his  money  is  spent  in  really 
beautiful  architecture,  which  alas !  is  seldom  the 
case,  it  may  be  regarded  as  in  the  same  class  of 
offerings  as  the  “  spikenard  very  precious,”  and 
the  poorest  need  not  be  hindered  from  entering  its 


62 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


portals.  Where  it  is  mere  display  and  upholstery, 
not  only  Puritanism  but  every  right  instinct  should 
regard  it  as  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God. 
Then  the  only  excuse  is  that  in  comparison  with  the 
rest  of  the  life  it  is  in  a  measure  unselfish  expenditure, 
and  is  at  worst  some  training  in  generosity. 

The  same  principle  applies  to  the  forms  of  prayer. 
It  would  depend  on  the  kind  of  forms,  not  on  forms 
as  such  whether  the  use  of  them  were  a  denial  of 
Puritanism.  Forms  of  prayer  at  least  are  not  new 
in  Presbyterianism,  only  there  is  perhaps  something 
not  very  congenial  to  them  in  its  atmosphere,  and 
it  is  very  doubtful  whether  at  the  present  day  the 
employment  of  them  tends  to  increase.  Yet  if  the 
habit  of  family  prayer,  which  really  is  assumed  as 
the  preparation  for  our  method  of  public  worship, 
decreases  as  rapidly  as  it  appears  to  be  doing,  the 
necessity  of  a  stated  form  of  worship  will  no  doubt 
be  more  and  more  felt.  In  any  case,  the  right  to  use 
forms  belongs  to  our  freedom  as  well  as  the  right 
to  do  without  them. 

When  we  say  that  none  of  these  things  touch  the 
heart  of  our  Puritanism,  we  mean  that  we  have 
not  modified  our  view  that  the  Church  is  not  the 
edifice,  but  the  communion  of  saints  ;  that  its  glory 
is  not  in  any  outward  splendour,  but  in  the  souls  it 
calls  into  the  fellowship  of  Christ ;  that  the  test  of 
its  success  is  not  ritual,  but  humble,  patient,  stead¬ 
fast  lives ;  that  its  task  is  not  to  exalt  itself  at  all, 
but  to  serve  the  community,  and  that  it  must  ever 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  63 


be  ready  to  decrease  if  thereby  Christ  increase. 
A  sensuous  impression,  even  the  highest,  is  not  in 
our  view  either  pleasing  to  God  or  creative  of 
genuine  religious  impulse.  The  essence  of  worship 
is,  we  believe,  to  pray  with  the  understanding,  and 
to  that  end  the  task  is  to  persuade  us  by  the  truth 
and  not  merely  arrest  us  by  outward  impressiveness. 
Whether,  if  we  were  better  people  and  realised  our 
own  views  more  clearly,  some  more  of  our  money 
would  not  find  its  way  into  more  spiritual  channels 
than  even  ecclesiastical  bricks  and  mortar,  remains 
a  grave  question ;  but,  in  any  case,  if  Christianity 
is  not  primarily  concerned  with  humble  fellowship 
in  the  truth,  and  succeeds  best  through  a  stately 
religious  ceremonial  and  much  outward  impressive¬ 
ness,  it  can  have  very  little  use  for  Presbyterianism. 

3.  Closely  connected  with  the  Puritanism  of 
Presbyterianism  is  its  idea  of  National  Religion. 

Has  not  this  suffered  a  still  greater  change  ? 
Only  the  Church  of  Scotland  remains  a  State  Church 
among  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  the  English- 
speaking  races,  and  it  stands  face  to  face  with 
an  equally  powerful  organisation  which  has  ever 
more  and  more  clearly  denied  in  principle  the  whole 
idea  of  a  State  Church.  Moreover,  where  is  the 
Presbyterian  Church  which  even  dreams  of  includ¬ 
ing  the  whole  community  in  its  doctrine  and  dis¬ 
cipline  like  our  forefathers  of  the  seventeenth 
century  ? 

The  Puritan  conception  of  a  National  Church 


64  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


sprang  from  the  belief  that  the  true  religious  life 
is  just  the  secular  life  rightly  lived,  that  the  only 
treasure  of  the  Church  is  God’s  Word,  and  that 
its  task  is  not  to  build  up  splendour  of  religious 
ceremonial,  but  humbly  to  persuade  men  to  peace 
with  God,  and  thereby  to  render  the  highest  of  all 
services  to  the  community.  The  Presbyterian  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  as  much  as  the  Episco¬ 
palian,  identified  the  Church  in  circumference  with 
the  baptized  State,  but  he  differed  from  men  like 
Hooker  in  maintaining  that  they  were  not  identified 
in  principle.  In  principle  the  Church  was  the 
fellowship  of  the  elect.  They  alone  gave  it  reality 
and  power.  On  their  spirit  and  method  it  should 
be  organised.  Its  whole  task  was  to  serve  the 
civil  community,  but  not  on  the  same  principle  as 
the  State.  Wherefore,  the  State  did  not  require 
to  make  the  Church  a  great  secular  institution,  nor 
did  the  Church  require  to  be,  in  its  own  territory, 
under  the  tutelage  of  the  State.  Therefore,  in 
practical  result  no  Presbyterian  Church  ever  was 
a  State  Church  in  the  same  sense  as  the  Lutheran 
or  Anglican,  and  most  Presbyterian  Churches  have 
come  to  maintain  that  the  method  of  the  State 
and  the  method  of  the  Church  cannot  with  profit 
to  either  be  combined. 

When  we  were  obstinately  refusing  to  see  where 
our  own  principles  were  leading  us,  Congregation¬ 
alism  arose  and  said,  “We  must  proceed  with  a 
true  Church,  however  few,  without  tarrying  for 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  65 


any.”  That  was  a  right  and  Christian  thing  to  say, 
and  through  stress  of  circumstances,  if  not  through 
insight,  all  Churches  to-day  have  more  or  less  come 
to  the  same  result.  But  the  question  is  what 
this  True  Church  is  to  proceed  to  do,  and  with 
all  our  blundering  we  have,  I  venture  to  think, 
with  native  obstinacy,  stuck  to  that  better  than 
Congregationalism . 

There  may  only  be  a  remnant  according  to  election 
who  save  the  Church,  but  they  are  to  be  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  to  save  the  whole  people.  In  that  case 
a  Church  should  in  some  practical  way  be  a  national 
Church,  with  a  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  nation’s 
poorest  and  most  degraded,  for  the  small  places  as 
well  as  the  great,  for  national  well-being  of  all  kinds, 
and  for  carrying  out  in  the  world  at  large  national 
responsibility. 

The  non-established  Presbyterians,  who  to-day 
are  the  vast  majority,  refuse  to  be  dependent  on 
the  State  because  they  think  the  true  principle  of 
the  Church  would  thereby  be  compromised,  and  the 
national  life  worse  served,  but  the  ultimate  rationale 
of  their  Presbyterian  organisation  is  its  efficacy  for 
national  service. 

One  illuminating  example  is  our  own  small 
Church  in  England,  where  our  attempt  to  be  a 
national  Church  may  resemble  the  inflation  of  the 
fabled  frog,  though  our  failure  is  not  due  to  our 
smallness  but  to  the  commercial  success  of  the 
better-educated  Scot,  which  in  spite  of  us  has  too 
5 


66 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


much  drawn  us  away  from  being  what  all  other 
Presbyterian  Churches  are,  a  Church  of  the  common 
people. 

The  most  conspicuous  example  of  success,  at 
least  outside  of  America,  is  the  United  Free  Church 
of  Scotland,  which  is  a  national  Church  as  truly 
as  any  State  Church  in  Christendom,  and  there 
are  few  questions  more  important  than  whether 
she  will  have  enough  patience,  humility,  absence  of 
legal  rule,  and  power  to  discriminate  between  the 
temporal  and  the  spiritual,  to  make  her  a  blessing, 
not  a  menace,  in  a  free  and  self-governing  State.  ] 

4.  The  system  of  government  by  elders,  which  I 
here  treat  only  in  the  last  place,  may  seem  to  you 
the  only  really  distinguishing  feature  of  our  system. 
Does  not  Presbyterianism  mean  simply  govern¬ 
ment  by  presbyters  ? 

But  it  is  not  government  by  elders  alone  which 
distinguishes  Presbyterianism.  It  is  government  by 
presbyters  under  Calvinistic  and  Puritan  ideas  and 
for  national  ends. 

The  seventeenth  century  heard  the  claim  of 
divine  right  for  presbyters,  and  perhaps  you  know 
that  there  have  arisen  in  our  day  those  who  claim 
for  us  orders  and  apostolic  succession.  But  a 
question  which  elsewhere  has  stirred  interest  to  the 
depths,  has  left  our  calm  unruffled.  Is  it  that 
we  are  too  modest  to  insist  on  the  claim  or  too  well 
instructed  to  believe  in  it  ?  But  we  should  not 
think  it  true  modesty  to  fail  to  lay  claim  to  any- 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  67 


thing  that  was  good,  and  when  there  were  some 
eight  hundred  bishops  in  the  Province  of  Africa 
in  the  fifth  century  they  must  have  been  a  great 
deal  more  like  Presbyterian  ministers  than  Anglican 
metropolitans.  The  true  reason  is  that  we  regard 
such  a  guarantee  of  the  ministry  as  external  and 
material,  and  we  seek  it  in  a  quite  different,  and  in 
our  view  a  higher,  principle.  A  Catholic  Ecclesia, 
a  Church  in  its  wholeness,  we  acknowledge  where- 
ever  two  or  three  are  met  in  the  name  of  Christ. 
That,  and  that  alone,  we  acknowledge  as  fully  as 
our  Congregational  brethren,  both  adequately  and 
exclusively  constitutes  a  Church  of  Christ.  There 
its  truth,  its  worship,  its  fellowship,  its  witness 
and  service  are  all  represented.  All  believers 
are  priests  qualified  to  appear  before  God  both  for 
themselves  and  for  their  brethren,  called  to  manifest 
the  word  of  reconciliation  and  peace  with  their 
lives,  if  not  with  their  utterance,  able  in  some  way 
to  admonish  one  another,  and,  if  need  arose  and  the 
order  of  the  Church  were  not  disturbed  thereby, 
qualified  to  administer  any  Christian  ordinance^ 
The  minister  is  not  the  substitute  for  this  priesthood 
of  all  believers,  but  the  organ  of  it,  and  that  on 
Luther’s  ground,  that  what  belongs  to  all  cannot 
be  exercised  except  by  one  chosen  in  some  way 
by  all  to  represent  them. 

On  this  question  of  representation  nearly  all  our 
divisions  have  arisen.  Direct  election  by  the  con¬ 
gregation  was  not  always  insisted  on.  Even  a 


68 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


patron  could  be  tolerated  so  long  as  be  would  be 
the  vehicle  of  this  choice  and  did  not  use  his  position 
merely  to  advance  his  dependents.  But  the  con¬ 
viction  that  election  was  the  natural  and  right  ex¬ 
pression  of  this  view  was  so  strong  that  in  the  end 
it  has  abolished  patronage  even  in  the  State  Church. 
Yet  our  idea  of  election  is  not  democratic  in  the  strict 
sense.  It  is  not  that  every  hearer  has  a  right  to 
choose  his  teacher.  No  minister  or  elder  is  truly 
called  except  God  call  him,  and  God  does  not  call  him 
unless  he  have  the  gifts  of  knowledge  or  prudence,  of 
prophecy  or  influence  which  may  enable  him  to  fulfil 
his  office.  But  every  member  of  the  Church  in  full 
communion,  being,  ex  hypothesi ,  a  saint  in  the  old 
sense  of  the  word,  one,  that  is,  who  lays  himself 
open  to  the  Spirit  of  God,  has  the  gift  of  discerning 
spiritual  gifts  and  can,  however  poor  and  humble 
and  ignorant  he  be,  learn  the  mind  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  matter.  In  strict  theory  no  man,  what¬ 
ever  his  preparation,  is  a  minister  except  by  the 
call  of  the  Spirit  through  the  people  to  represent 
their  universal  priesthood. 

That  view,  of  course,  is  not  confined  to  us  but 
is  fundamental  to  Protestantism,  and  the  only 
difference  in  the  matter  is  that  our  people  have  per¬ 
haps  made  more  of  the  idea  of  doing  everything  in 
order  and  have  thereby  been  inclined  to  regard  the 
minister,  perhaps  too  exclusively,  as  the  organ  of 
their  priesthood.  For  example,  it  has  been  the 
uniform  custom  for  the  minister  when  present  to 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  69 


preside  at  all  meetings  except  for  business  of  a 
strictly  financial  kind,  and,  above  all,  to  preside  at 
the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  even  though 
in  theory  the  elder  is  as  much  a  presbyter  and  true 
bishop  of  the  flock  as  he. 

No  part  of  our  system  is  more  characteristic 
of  it  than  the  eldership.  Its  concern  is  with  the 
spiritual  work  of  the  church,  with  visiting  the 
sick  and  the  indifferent,  and,  as  occasion  offers, 
keeping  in  touch  with  all  the  members  in  a  district. 
The  elders,  met  in  session,  receive  members  and 
occasionally  remove  them,  distribute  the  elements 
at  the  Communion,  have  a  veto  on  all  use  of  the 
church  buildings  which  might  not  be  consistent 
with  the  ends  of  a  Christian  church,  and,  where 
they  do  not  share  in  the  temporal  management, 
they  appoint  the  collections  for  benevolent  objects 
and  administer  the  alms  of  the  congregation.  These 
objects  on  the  whole  they  carry  out  effectively. 
The  idea  that  they  shall  also  be  leaders  in  prayer 
and  care  of  the  young  and  in  initiating  all  good 
works  is,  however,  very  variously  realised,  some¬ 
times  well  and  sometimes  not  at  all.  Still,  all  who 
know  them  would,  I  think,  bear  witness  to  their 
sincerity  and  wisdom  and  weight  of  character,  and 
when  I  think  of  the  unfailing  help  I  received  from 
my  own,  I  scarce  realise  how  a  congregation  is 
carried  on  without  them. 

For  the  most  part  Plato’s  idea  of  office  has  been 
well  fulfilled,  that  only  those  who  shrink  from 


70 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


office  should  be  allowed  to  rule.  Here  our  idea 
of  office  in  the  Church  conies  in.  We  do  not  say, 
Will  you  be  a  candidate  for  the  people’s  suffrage, 
and  have  the  honour  of  being  their  representative  ? 
We  say,  Your  brethren  after  thought  and  prayer 
have  decided  that  you  most  of  all  have  the  gifts 
for  this  office,  and  you  must  consider  whether  that 
is  not  a  call  of  God  which  you  may  not  refuse. 
Office  in  the  Church  is  thus  not  representation  of 
the  people,  but  representation  of  the  Divine  mind, 
which  it  is  the  duty  of  the  people  to  take  part  in 
discovering.  It  is  not  their  part  to  choose  repre¬ 
sentatives,  but  to  discover  leaders,  and  still  less 
is  it  their  part  to  control  them  except  in  so  far  as 
the  meeting  of  the  whole  congregation,  being  itself 
the  highest  expression  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
is  also  the  highest  appeal. 

Even  in  financial  management  this  is  still  our  idea, 
and  some  congregations  express  it  by  ordaining 
their  managers  as  deacons.  The  idea  that  he  who 
pays  the  piper  shall  call  the  tune  is  foreign  to  all 
our  principles,  whatever  defects  may  have  crept 
into  our  practice.  Such  an  idea  of  giving  would 
deprive  it  of  all  religious  value.  A  man  should 
give  simply  as  part  of  his  stewardship  over  the 
gifts  God  has  entrusted  to  him,  but  quite  other 
gifts  may  be  required  for  the  Church’s  administra¬ 
tion.  Why  should  the  gifts  pass  through  the  Church 
at  all,  if  not  to  have  some  one  stand  between  giver 
and  receiver,  so  that  the  one  may  give  simply  as  his 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  71 


duty,  and  the  other  receive  simply  as  his  right  ? 
That  was  the  principle  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scot¬ 
land  Sustentation  Fund,  but  it  is  also  in  some  form 
the  principle  of  all  kinds  of  help  given  by  richer 
congregations  to  poorer  in  every  Presbyterian 
Church.  That  is  the  principle  also  of  passing  all 
gifts  within  the  congregation,  such  as  those  for  the 
poor,  through  the  Church.  I  have  known  people 
who  would  far  rather  have  starved  than  receive 
poor  relief,  accept  without  the  slightest  sense  of 
dependence  help  thus  conveyed. 

In  theory,  that  is  still  our  view.  In  practice, 
this  commercial  age  is  sometimes  too  strong  for  us. 
Lists  of  subscriptions  let  everybody’s  left  hand 
know  what  every  one  else’s  right  hand  does,  and 
large  subscribers  become  prominent,  and,  not  being 
elected  elders  or  not  being  willing  to  accept  office, 
think  they  should  have  influence  in  other  ways. 
But  there  are  still  congregations  which  act  on  the 
old  ideas  and  do  not  suffer  from  it  even  in  material 
things.  Probably  the  chief  cause  of  the  change  is 
simply  a  loss  of  faith  in  truly  Christian  motive. 
Yet,  this  is  to  be  said  for  us,  a  poor  man  is  still  as 
likely  to  be  made  an  elder  as  a  rich,  and  we  have 
never  used  financial  aid  to  coerce  in  any  degree 
the  smallest  congregation. 

On  the  eldership  all  further  organisation  rests. 
Every  congregation  sends  its  minister  and  one 
or  two  elders  to  the  local  presbytery.  In  the 
larger  churches  several  presbyteries  send  repre- 


72 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


sentatives  to  a  synod,  and  then  there  is  a  General 
Assembly,  sometimes,  I  believe,  made  up  from 
presbyteries  or  synods,  and  sometimes  from  a  propor¬ 
tion  of  the  congregations  in  rotation.  In  the  smaller 
bodies  the  supreme  court  is  a  synod  to  which  all  the 
congregations  send  a  minister  and  an  elder.  This 
court,  whether  synod  or  assembly,  decides  finally 
all  appeals,  every  member  having  a  right  of  access 
to  it.  It  directs  all  the  general  enterprises  of  the 
Church,  and  it  alone  has  a  right  to  make  any  change 
in  the  constitution  or  the  creed,  and  then  only  after 
consulting  the  eldership  of  all  the  congregations, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the  people. 
On  the  finding  of  the  majority  of  congregations  it 
may  not  act,  but  it  must  not  act  without  knowing 
what  that  finding  is. 

Here  our  real  difference  from  Congregationalism 
begins,  because  the  difference  in  the  organisation 
of  the  congregation  is  mainly  a  question  of  names. 
The  Congregationalist  view  rests,  or  at  least  did 
at  first  rest,  on  the  conviction  that  all  right  govern¬ 
ment  in  the  Church  is  exclusively  by  the  exercise 
of  God’s  Word.  It  was  held  that  as  this  could  not 
go  beyond  one  assembly  for  worship,  one  gathering 
with  Christ  and  His  Word  in  the  midst  of  it,  such 
rule  could  not  be  wider  than  the  congregation. 
Perhaps  there  was  also  a  general  feeling  that  such 
restriction  of  rule  would  forward  true  unity,  would, 
considering  how  much  men  are  driven  apart  by  the 
violent  desire  to  unite  them,  alone  forward  true  unity. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  73 


Now  the  fundamental  thing  about  the  order  of 
the  Church  is  that  it  ought  to  be  non-legal,  the 
government  of  each  man  by  the  Spirit  of  God  and 
organisation  through  love.  It  is  not  the  government 
of  one  man  by  another  and  organisation  through 
compulsion.  The  unit  of  it  is  the  two  or  three 
freely  met  in  Christ’s  name,  and  all  wider  co-ordina¬ 
tion  of  it  must  be  on  the  same  principle  of  free 
association.  Moreover,  the  rule  of  God  to  which  all 
churches  should  be  subjected  may  possibly  never  in 
this  world  be  an  ecclesiastical  construction,  may  not 
indeed  begin  truly  to  exist  till  we  are  content  to  have 
love  as  the  one  bond  of  perfectness. 

Further,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  wider 
organisation  has  been  used  as  mere  organised  force 
to  compel  a  union  which  has  not  been  Christian 
fellowship,  and  which,  when  responsibility  is  properly 
assigned,  must  be  regarded  as  the  cause  of  all  the 
divisions  of  Christendom.  Nor  do  I  wish  to  deny 
that  our  Church  courts  have  been  used  in  a  legal 
spirit — our  common  creed  sometimes  falling  short 
of  being  a  common  faith,  and  rights  of  office  and 
property  receiving  too  much  consideration.  This 
legal  temper  was  at  one  time  the  cause  and  the 
justification  for  the  rise  of  Independency  ;  and  I 
cannot  be  sure,  seeing  how  much  unnecessary  law 
there  was  on  both  sides  in  the  recent  Free  Church 
of  Scotland  case,  that  we  have  quite  lived  that 
temper  down.  But,  the  question  is  whether  these 
evils  do  not  belong  to  unregenerate  human  nature 


74 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


and  not  to  the  system,  and  whether  a  rejection 
of  this  wider  organisation  is  so  much  an  escape  from 
temptation  as  is  supposed.  Are  the  smaller  con¬ 
gregations  freer  from  compulsion  from  their  stronger 
neighbours  ?  Am  I  altogether  wrong  in  the  impres¬ 
sion  I  have  occasionally  gathered  that  the  restric¬ 
tion  of  the  rule  within  the  congregation  does  not 
necessarily  ensure  that  it  shall  be  wholly  by  God’s 
Word,  which,  being  rightly  interpreted,  I  take  to 
mean  wholly  by  the  appeal  to  truth  and  the  spirit 
of  love  ?  The  historical  need  of  the  protest  against 
our  temper  is  beyond  all  question,  but  in  rejecting 
the  method  with  the  temper,  has  there  not  been 
something  of  what  the  Germans  call  throwing  out 
the  child  with  the  bath  ?  It  is  the  spirit,  not  the 
extent  of  the  rule,  that  matters.  And  if  the  only 
right  spirit  is  the  humble  appeal  to  truth  and 
love,  why  should  it  not  link  society  to  society  as 
well  as  individual  to  individual  ?  Surely  the  rule 
of  God’s  Word  in  that  sense  can  be  as  wide  as 
Christian  association  in  faith  and  good  works  ; 
whereas,  if  it  is  the  kind  of  rule  which  is  wrong,  it 
may  be  no  more  right  in  a  congregation  than  in  a 
wider  sphere.  What  leads  to  the  restricted  notion 
of  government  by  the  Word  is  the  conception  of  it 
as  preaching  on  infallible  Scripture  which  is  thought 
of  as  a  legislation.  If  it  is  simply  the  appeal  to 
truth  and  the  spirit  of  love,  the  restriction  dis¬ 
appears  of  itself. 

While  we  Presbyterians  are  far  from  having  over- 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  75 


come  our  whole  error,  we  can  claim  that  increasingly 
our  presbyteries  and  assemblies  have  attended  to 
matters  in  which  there  could  be  nothing  but  willing 
co-operation.  Heresy  hunts  and  visitations  except 
for  encouragement  have  died  away.  Helping  the 
weaker  causes,  home  missions,  foreign  missions, 
the  care  of  the  young,  the  training  of  the  ministry, 
the  state  of  religion,  and  occasionally  matters  of 
public  morality  now  occupy  almost  exclusively 
their  attention,  and  when  they  decide  matters 
either  for  individuals  or  for  congregations,  their 
finding  has  no  force  except  the  benefit  to  be  derived 
from  belonging  to  their  larger  association,  and,  as  I 
have  said,  no  decision  is  ever  enforced  by  the  power 
of  the  purse,  or  I  think  one  can  say  by  any  kind 
of  social  ostracism. 

The  question,  therefore,  is  whether  we  have  not 
now  come  to  the  point  where  the  watchwords  of 
Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism  should  no 
longer  divide  us ;  where  we  Presbyterians  should 
admit  that  all  rule  in  the  Christian  Church  should 
be  non-legal,  and  Congregationalists  should  admit 
that  that  is  an  affair  of  the  spirit  and  temper  of  a 
rule,  not  of  the  size  of  its  sphere. 

From  this  it  is  plain  that  no  system  belongs  to 
the  being  of  the  Church.  At  most  it  is  concerned 
with  the  well-being.  Nay  in  itself,  and  apart 
from  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  employed,  it  does 
not  even  belong  to  the  well-being.  The  West- 


76 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


minster  Confession  says  that  a  church  may  become 
a  synagogue  of  Satan.  Nor  will  Presbyterianism 
or  any  other  form  of  church  government  by  itself 
save  it.  The  Church  consists  of  what  the  Church 
of  England  Articles  call  congregations  of  faithful, 
that  is  of  believing  men,  among  whom  the  Word 
of  God  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  rightly 
administered.  That  is  to  say,  it  consists  of  those 
to  whom  God’s  pardon  and  grace  are  realities. 
Not  by  any  human  discipline  may  the  attempt  be 
made  to  reduce  the  Church  to  such  persons.  The 
utmost  any  discipline  may  attempt  is  to  exclude 
those  who  cannot  on  any  judgment  of  charity  be 
included.  Yet  that  fellowship  of  believing  men  is 
the  Church  both  in  principle  and  in  power.  It  con¬ 
sists  of  those  truly  met  in  Christ’s  name,  however 
few.  The  founding  of  the  Church  was  not  the 
creation  of  an  organisation  with  rulers  and  subjects. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  founding  of  a  society 
which  was  to  shun  the  authority  of  one  man 
over  another  by  which  worldly  societies  prevail. 
Its  rules  are  that  the  first  is  to  be  last  and  the  last 
first,  and  that  no  one  is  to  be  called  Rabbi,  for 
all  are  brethren  and  all  alike  have  one  Divine 
teacher.  Its  supreme  ordinance  was  a  Supper 
appointed  on  the  eve  of  the  crucifixion  to  associate 
men  as  brethren  in  the  discovery  that  service  and 
suffering,  and  not  human  rule,  are  the  mighty 
things  in  God’s  kingdom.  It  is  a  society,  in  short, 
of  the  rule  of  God,  and  that  means  a  rule  exclusively 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  77 


of  love,  a  rule  in  which  each  one  finding  his  Father 
in  heaven  also  finds  his  brother  upon  earth. 

Fundamentally,  then,  and  in  principle,  the  Church 
is  a  non-legal  rule  in  which  every  endeavour  after 
order  must  be  an  appeal  to  love,  so  that,  when 
division  and  trouble  arise,  every  appeal  is  unworthy 
except  to  the  heart  of  our  brethren.  In  short,  it  is 
here  to  establish  God’s  final  rule  of  freedom  and 
love  which  are  the  same  thing,  and  to  teach  men 
that  compulsions  of  all  kinds,  even  in  the  State, 
are  merely  preparatory,  educative,  and  temporal. 
We  must  ever  recognise  that  this  rule,  by  humble 
service,  is  far  more  important  than  whether  the 
ruler  is  a  deacon,  an  elder,  or  a  bishop. 

Such  a  Church  is  founded  upon  the  apostles  and 
prophets.  But  that  is  not  a  traditional  idea.  It 
does  not  mean  any  material  succession  of  laying-on  of 
hands,  which  to  us  at  least  is  a  conception  worldly 
and  unspiritual.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  God  the 
apostles  saw  directly  we  see  indirectly,  or  that  we  can 
only  know  His  will  for  them  and  not  for  us.  On  the 
contrary,  it  means  that  through  them  we  also  can 
be  apostles  and  prophets,  conscious  that  God  is 
working  out  a  great  purpose  through  His  people, 
and  believing  that  it  is  not  by  might,  nor  by  power, 
but  by  God’s  Spirit,  that  it  is  to  be  brought  to  pass. 

Such  an  apostolic  and  prophetic  Church  is  neces¬ 
sarily  historical,  but  that  is  because  it  is  occupied 
in  a  historical  task,  not  merely  because  it  has  a 
historical  ancestry.  The  Church  is  historical  because 


78 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


it  is  prophetic ;  that  is  to  say,  because  age  by  age 
it  must  take  up  its  task  where  it  finds  it,  assured 
of  learning  God’s  purpose  in  it,  and  trusting  only 
in  the  Divine  method  of  truth  and  love  what¬ 
soever  difficulties  and  discouragements  may  arise. 
The  whole  Christian  view  is  reversed  when  the 
Church  is  held  to  be  a  prophetic  society  because 
it  is  a  historic  society,  as  if  we  were  to  be  children 
of  Abraham  after  the  flesh  and  not  after  his  faith. 
It  is  a  historical  society  because  it  has  a  revelation 
of  God,  which  is  to  say,  an  ever-fuller  manifestation 
of  God’s  eternal  order  of  love  and  freedom,  of  which 
Jesus  is  not  only  the  fountain-head  but  the  abiding 
inspiration.  It  is  also  a  historical  society  in  the 
sense  that  we  have  to  take  up  the  task  of  applying 
this  revelation  at  the  point  we  find  it,  accepting 
responsibility  for  past  failures  and  defects,  as  well 
as  inheriting  the  gains  and  victories  of  the  past. 
Usually  that  means  taking  it  up  in  the  society 
which  has  made  us  what  we  are,  and  which  we 
should  not  leave  except  for  strong  spiritual  con¬ 
victions.  It  is  also  a  historical  society  in  the  sense 
that  we  may  not  seek  to  cut  ourselves  oh  from  the 
influences  of  our  time,  intellectual,  social,  or  political, 
for  it  is  in  this  age  God  has  placed  us,  and  it  is  this 
age  we  are  to  serve. 

By  realising  this  position  we  shall  serve  in  our  own 
denomination,  but  only  for  the  sake  of  the  whole, 
as  we  should  serve  in  our  own  regiment  for  the  sake 
of  the  empire  ;  and  it  ought  to  be  our  endeavour 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  79 


never  to  be  indifferent  to  any  society  in  which 
sincere  Christians  may  be  toiling,  nor  ever  to  feel 
alienated  from  them  because  their  sincerity  leads 
them  to  different  convictions  from  ours.  Thus 
we  shall  surmount  our  divisions  by  something 
more  inspiring  than  ecclesiastical  compromise, 
something  more  apostolic  than  the  averaging  of  our 
individuality,  whether  in  belief  or  organisation. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES 


F.  J.  POWICKE,  Ph.D. 


6 


1.  Congregational  Idea  of  the  Church. 

(а)  Its  sanction  in  the  New  Testament. 

(б)  Its  emergence  in  “  Brownism.” 

2.  The  Spirituality  of  the  Brownist  Movement. 

3.  How  its  “  Separatist  ”  Aspect  gave  way  to  the  Con- 

GREGATIONALIST  AND  THE  CATHOLIC. 

4.  Two  Things  seen  from  the  First. 

(a)  True  relation  of  the  ministry  to  the  Church. 

(&)  Necessity  for  a  pure  fellowship. 

5.  Attitude  of  Congregationalism  to — 

(a)  The  Sacraments. 

(b)  Church  polity. 

(c)  The  State. 

(d)  Creeds. 

(e)  Missions. 

6.  Congregationalism  essentially  Social  and  Fraternal. 

7.  What  it  has  Given  and  Gained. 


82 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES 


Dr.  R.  W.  Dale,  in  an  essay  written  nearly  forty 
years  ago,1  closes  with  a  statement  of  what  he 
considered  to  be  “  the  distinctive  function 55  of 
Congregationalists . 

It  was,  he  thought,  not  the  work  of  Evangelisation, 
for  that  is  the  work  alike  of  all  Christians  ;  still 
less  was  it  the  work  of  testifying  against  the  evils, 
real  or  supposed,  of  other  Churches — for  example, 
the  evil  of  “  ecclesiastical  establishments  ”  ;  nor  was 
it  the  work  of  reconstructing  theological  science,  or 
taking  a  chief  place  in  the  controversy  with  un¬ 
belief.  All  such  work  may  form  a  part  of  their 
duty,  and  sometimes  an  inevitable  part.  But 
their  distinctive  function  is  “to  reveal  and  to  realise 
the  true  idea  of  the  Church.” 

i.  Here  it  is  assumed  that  there  is  but  one  legiti¬ 
mate  idea  of  the  Church,  and  that  this  is  identical 
with  that  which  Congregationalists  exist  to  maintain 
and  express.  Such  a  claim  may  seem  to  some  rather 
audacious,  if  not  insolent.  And  so  it  would  be  if 
it  were  said  that  Congregationalists  have  a  mono¬ 
poly  of  the  idea.  But,  of  course,  he  and  we  say 

1  Essays  and  Addresses  (1871),  p.  176. 

83 


84 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


nothing  so  inept.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  gladly 
admitted  that  the  Idea  is  a  common  possession 
of  all  Christian  people,  and  that  the  perception 
of  it  has  never  been  quite  lost  among  any. 

We  could,  for  example,  hardly  desire  a  better 
statement  of  the  idea  than  is  given  in  the  following 
words :  44  The  idea  of  a  Church — as  conceived  in 
its  most  general  form — is  this,  that  it  widens  life 
by  deepening  the  sense  of  brotherhood  ;  that  it 
teaches,  strengthens,  and  propagates  ideas  by 
enshrining  truth  in  living  witnesses  .  .  .  and  that 
it  expands  and  deepens  worship  by  eliminating 
all  that  is  selfish  and  narrow,  and  giving  expression 
to  common  aims  and  feelings.”  But  these  are 
the  words  of  Dr.  Walter  Lock  in  his  Lux  Mundi 
essay  on  the  Church,  and  he  goes  on  to  show  that, 
in  its  Christian  form,  the  Church  answers  com¬ 
pletely  to  this  idea.  For  it  consists  of  persons 
who  44  continue  to  draw  out  and  express  in  their 
common  life  the  perfection  that  was  in  Christ  ”  ; 
who  expound  and  propagate  the  44  truths  about 
God  and  His  relation  to  human  nature  ”  which 
Christ  revealed  ;  and  who  present  unto  God  the 
sacrifice  of  a  pure,  spiritual  worship.  It  is  a  super¬ 
natural  society  anticipated  and  intended  by  Jesus, 
but  formally  created  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  On 
that  day  44  the  Church  was  formed  in  becoming 
the  possessor  of  a  common  corporate  life.”  This 
life  was  the  life  of  Christ,  given  by  the  Spirit  to  the 
whole  body  of  Christians  together.  He  is  the  Vine ; 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  85 


they  are  the  branches.  They  draw  all  their  life 
from  Him.  Apart  from  Him,  they  can  do  nothing. 
If  in  union  with  Him,  they  bear  fruit. 

Other  metaphors  suggest  the  same  fact  of  cor¬ 
porate  life.  “The  Church  is  a  household,  a 
scene  of  active  work,  of  skilled  and  trained 
activity”;  “it  is  a  family  in  which  ‘all  ye  are 
brethren,’  laying  obligations  of  love  between  brother 
and  brother,  calling  out  self-sacrifice  for  the  good  of 
others,  deepening  in  each  the  sense  of  the  value 
of  the  lives  of  others.” 

“  It  is  the  body  of  Christ,  that  which  grows 
stronger  and  stronger,  that  which  draws  its  life  from 
Him,  and  must  hold  to  Him.”  .  .  .  “It  is  God’s 
temple,  made  up  of  parts  which  are  fitted  in  to  one 
another  in  symmetry.”  .  .  .  “  It  is  the  Bride  of 
Christ,  the  dearest  object  of  Christ’s  love,  which 
gives  herself  to  Him  for  His  service,  which  for 
His  sake  keeps  herself  pure  in  life  and  doctrine.” 
Such  language  well  describes  what  is  meant  by  “the 
Communion  of  Saints”;  and  the  communion  of 
saints  is  at  bottom  what  all  Christians  understand 
by  the  Church. 

There  is  no  Evangelical  Christian  but  believes 
that  Jesus  meant  to  form  a  Church,  that  He  meant 
it  to  consist  of  His  true  disciples,  that  when  these 
meet  in  His  name  He  is  in  the  midst  of  them,  that 
His  immanent  presence  is  the  spring  of  their  life, 
and  that  life  in  Him  makes  them  one  body.  Nor 
is  there  any  Evangelical  Christian  but  believes  that 


86 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


such  a  communion  of  saints  is  the  Church’s  essential 
’  note.  But  while  this  is  so,  it  is  certain  that  the 
idea  of  the  Church  as  a  simple  communion  of  saints 
has  had  a  hard  fight  for  life.  We  find  it  radiant 
in  the  New  Testament ;  we  find  it  obscured  almost 
to  the  point  of  extinction  by  the  end  of  the  third 
century.  Its  place  has  been  taken  by  ideas  practi¬ 
cally  fatal  to  it. 

How  the  transition  came  about  is  a  question  on 
which  we  do  not  need  here  to  dwell. 

Henry  Barrow  ascribed1  the  change  to  a  “  super¬ 
stitious  reverence  and  preposterous  estimation  of 
their  teachers  ”  on  the  part  of  the  people — together 
with  the  natural  craving  of  governors  for  increased 
authority.  It  is  more  likely  to  have  arisen  from  a 
combination  of  circumstances  in  which  conscious 
purpose  played  a  very  subordinate  part.  But  let 
us  beware  of  a  fallacy.  Our  reverence  for  “  God 
in  history  ”  may  easily  induce  the  notion  that  all 
changes  which  can  be  called  (in  any  sense)  natural 
are  normal.  We  may  fail  to  see  that  changes  are 
normal,  are  a  true  development,  only  so  far  as  they 
at  once  conserve  and  expand  the  essential  type 
or  idea  of  that  from  which  they  start.  Changes 
which  involve  a  loss,  or  reversal,  of  the  original  idea 
are  abnormal,  however  excellent  the  result  may 
seem  to  be.  If  what  began  as  a  democracy  ends  as  a 
despotism  you  may  say  that  the  latter  is  a  superior 
form  of  government  to  the  former  ;  but  you  cannot 
1  Brief e  Discoverie  ofjihe  False  Church  (1590),  p.  3. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  87 


fairly  say  that  it  is  a  legitimate  outcome  of  the 
former.  Even  so  if  you  admit  that  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  idea  of  the  Church  is  a  redeemed  people, 
all  kingly  and  priestly  in  functions,  you  must  admit 
that  the  historic  process  which  turned  it  into  a 
society  ruled  and  ministered  to  by  a  spiritual 
oligarchy  of  priestly  office  went  wrong  somehow  ; 
and  if  you  still  speak  of  the  process  as  a  true  develop¬ 
ment  you  must  show  that  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  a 
redeemed  people  is  not  really  in  the  New  Testament 
after  all. 

It  is  the  belief  of  Congregationalists  that  what 
may  be  called  the  ecclesiastical  disfranchisement 
of  the  people  was  a  radical  departure  from  the  mind 
of  Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church, 
and  has  been  a  source  of  manifold  evils.  It  is  also 
their  belief  that,  to  them,  in  the  providence  of  God, 
has  been  committed  the  task  of  restoring  to  its 
central  place  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  essentially 
a  redeemed  people,  who  in  virtue  of  a  common 
direct  relation  to  Christ  are  spiritually  equal  among 
themselves  and  endowed  by  Him  with  all  the  rights 
and  powers  which  He  meant  His  Church  to  possess,  j 

ii.  Although  this  idea  first  came  to  conscious 
expression  as  modern  English  Congregationalism 
in  the  early  days  of  Elizabeth,  Dr.  Mackennal 
is  right  when  he  says  1  that  we  may  find  anticipa¬ 
tions  of  it  in  Wiclif’s  poor  priests  and  the  disciples 
whom  they  made.  These  were  drawn  together  by  a 
1  The  Evolution  of  Congregationalism,  p.  47. 


88 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


strong  spirit  of  fellowship.  They  formed  congrega¬ 
tions  more  or  less  permanent ;  and  their  influence, 
as  well  as  numbers,  was  greatest  in  just  those  parts 
of  the  land,  such  as  East  Anglia,  where  Congrega¬ 
tionalism  afterwards  flourished  most  vigorously. 
But  none  of  the  sporadic  congregations  before 
Robert  Browne  (1550  ?-1634),  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  one  gathered  by  Richard  Fitz 
(1571),  though  animated  by  the  Congregational 
idea,  were  conscious  of  it,  or  knew  what  they  were 
doing.  We  may  safely  speak  of  Browne  as  the 
first  deliberate  organiser  of  a  Congregational  Church 
in  England.  And  it  is  important  to  note  his  dom¬ 
inant  motive.  He  is  sometimes  set  forth  as  a 
preacher  of  the  doctrine  that  the  State  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Church.  This  was  not  only  not  his 
primary  idea,  it  was  not  his  view  at  all.  He  held 
from  first  to  last  that  “  the  Prince  55  (his  usual 
name  for  the  State)  ought  to  have  a  care,  a  supreme 
care,  for  the  Church.  He  ought  to  be  the  leader  in 
its  reform  ;  he  ought  to  compel  its  ministers,  if 
necessary,  to  do  their  duty  ;  he  ought  to  protect 
its  members  in  their  due  rights  and  privileges  ; 
he  ought  himself  to  obey,  and  see  that  they  obeyed, 
the  laws  of  Christ.  What  forced  Browne  to  seem 
disloyal  was  his  idea  of  the  Church.  We  do  not 
know  much  of  his  religious  history  ;  but  there  is 
evidence  that,  as  a  young  man,  he  underwent  the 
“  great  change  ” — he  passed  from  death  unto  life — 
through  faith  in  Christ.  Then  instinctively  he 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  89 


sought  a  congenial  spiritual  home.  But  he  could 
find  none.  It  was  impossible  for  him  in  those  days 
to  treat  Church  fellowship  with  indifference.  The 
notion  of  an  isolated  Christian  life  hardly  existed. 
He  had  either  to  content  himself  with  a  place  in  the 
established  Church,  in  his  own  parish  assembly,  or 
to  face  the  question  ‘  What  else  ?  5  That  question 
rose  about  him  on  all  sides  at  Cambridge  during 
his  student  days  (1572-5).  It  received  a  hesitat¬ 
ing  answer  from  moderate  Puritans  ;  it  evoked  a 
decisive  and  drastic  answer  from  Presbyterian 
Puritans,  like  Thomas  Cartwright.  Browne  judged 
both  answers  in  the  light  of  what  he  had  learnt  from 
an  independent  and  most  thorough  study  of  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  rejected  both.  His  feeling  that 
the  Church  should  be  a  fellowship  of  those  who  had 
experienced  the  same  great  change  as  himself  passed 
into  a  clear  conviction.  It  dawned  and  grew  upon 
him  as  a  wonderful  discovery  that,  according  to  the 
New  Testament,  “  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  ”  (as  he 
puts  it)  “  was  not  to  be  begun  by  whole  parishes,  but 
rather  of  the  worthiest,  were  they  never  so  few.” 
In  other  words,  the  members  of  Christ’s  Kingdom 
must  be  Christians.  The  condition  of  membership 
was  not  anything  national  or  parochial  or  sacra¬ 
mental,  but  something  personal.  It  pertained  to 
those,  and  those  only,  who  could  sincerely  avow 
their  faith  in  Christ  as  Saviour  and  Lord.  This 
being  so,  it  became  the  duty  (not  merely  the  right) 
of  Christians  to  unite  in  visible  societies.  When 


90 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Browne  set  up  such  a  society  in  Norwich  (1581) 
the  act— in  his  own  eyes,  and  in  the  view  of  those 
who  acted  with  him— was  a  moral  necessity. 
Obedience  to  Christ,  even  more  than  the  constraint 
of  mutual  sympathy,  made  it  inevitable.  If  it 
was,  as  they  profoundly  believed,  the  will  of  Christ 
that  His  disciples  should  unite  to  confess  Him  before 
men  and  practise  His  precepts,  there  was  no  choice. 
The  covenant  of  fidelity  to  their  unseen  Lord, 
and  to  one  another,  which  they  took,  each  and  all 
with  uplifted  hands,  was  their  glad  response  to  a 
command  which  must  be  obeyed. 

1 .  Let  me  emphasise  this  as  the  creative  impulse 
of  Congregationalism. 

It  was  not  an  exhibition  of  self-will.  It  was 
inspired  by  devotion  to  the  will  of  Christ. 

That  loyalty  to  Christ  entailed  an  apparent  dis¬ 
loyalty  to  the  Queen  was  the  result  of  circum¬ 
stances.  She  had  approved  another  quite  different 
form  of  the  Church,  and  demanded  a  degree  of 
conformity  to  it  which  Browne  and  his  brethren 
could  not  yield.  Nor  could  they  bring  themselves, 
like  the  Puritans  generally,  to  “  tarry  55  in  hope 
that  the  Queen  might  change  her  mind.  If  she 
delayed  to  accept,  or  refused  even  to  tolerate, 
what  had  been  revealed  to  them  as  the  truth  con¬ 
cerning  the  Church,  their  duty  none  the  less  was 
clear.  They  must  make  a  beginning.  They  must 
separate.  We  cannot  wonder  that  to  those  in 
authority  the  “  separation  ”  seemed  seditious  and 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  91 


even  treasonable.  It  was  natural,  moreover,  that, 
having  the  law  on  their  side,  they  should  strive  to 
suppress  the  movement  by  force.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  equally  natural  that  those  committed 
to  the  movement  should  try  to  justify  it ;  and,  to 
this  end,  should  lay  the  main  stress,  at  first,  on  the 
manifold  corruptions,  or  defects,  of  the  institution 
from  which  they  had  separated.  In  the  view  of 
Queen,  statesmen,  bishops,  and  Reformists,  the 
Brownists  were  the  “  spawn  ”  of  anarchy  in  Church 
and  State,  justly  to  be  visited  by  imprisonment  and 
hanging.  In  the  view  of  the  Brownists  the  Queen’s 
advisers  were  wicked  persecutors,  wilful  rebels 
against  Christ,  blind  guides,  defenders  of  an  evil 
system  for  filthy  lucre’s  sake,  tools  of  Antichrist. 
Neither  side,  in  fact,  had  an  eye  for  anything  but 
what  seemed  evil  in  the  other.  The  Brownist 
could  not  see  the  political  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
swift  reform  which  held  the  hand  of  the  Queen 
and  her  counsellors,  even  if  their  heart  had  inclined 
thereto  ;  nor  could  he  see  how  many  of  his  adver¬ 
saries  among  the  bishops  and  Puritans  were  men 
of  conscience  and  patriotism,  who  longed  to  do  the 
right ;  were  troubled  at  heart  because  the  right 
was  sometimes  so  hard  to  discern  ;  and  endured 
sadly  the  evils  of  an  imperfect  Reformation  for 
fear  of  graver  evils  that  might  follow  consistent 
action.  In  like  manner,  there  was  none  of  the 
dominant  party,  not  even  the  4  judicious  Hooker,’ 
who  caught  even  a  glimpse  of  the  fact  that  the  poor 


92 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Brownist  or  Barrowist  was  an  idealist  to  whom  a 
vision  of  surpassing  beauty  had  been  opened — an 
idealist  whose  love  of  Queen  and  country  was  as 
strong  and  pure  as  his  own,  but  who  found  himself 
driven  by  conscience  along  a  path  which  seemed 
disloyal  or  fanatically  perverse.  Perhaps  the 
mutual  misunderstanding  was  excusable  under  the 
circumstances.  But  there  is  surely  less  excuse 
for  us  if  we  perpetuate  it.  We  at  least  are  in  a 
position  which  enables  us  to  recognise  the  real 
issue  and  its  gravity.  It  was  not  a  question  of  the 
right  to  4  separate  5  for  matters  of  ceremony,  or 
doctrine,  or  discipline.  It  was  a  question  of  the 
Church  itself.  What  is  the  Church  1  What  is 
essential  to  it  ?  Is  any  particular  polity  essential  ? 
Are  bishops  or  elders  essential  ?  Is  this  or  that 
order  of  service  essential  ?  Or,  in  truth,  is  nothing 
essential  except  the  Christian  character  and  relation¬ 
ship  of  the  people  ?  Nothing  else,  said  Browne, 
Barrow,  Robinson,  and  their  comrades.  All  their 
negatives  sprang  out  of  this  fundamental  positive. 
In  the  words  of  Browne  :  44  The  Church  planted  or 
gathered  is  a  Company,  or  number,  of  Christians  or 
believers  which  by  a  willing  covenant  with  their 
God  are  under  the  Government  of  God  and  Christ, 
and  keep  His  laws  in  one  Holy  communion.”  Here 
is  no  mention  of  anything  but  Christians  or  believers. 

\ 

j£t  is  these  who  make  the  Church  ;  and  the  Church 
th^bs  made  44  is  a  supernatural  society.”  Not  too 
gtron^y  does  Dr.  Dale  express  their  thought 

\ 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  93 


as  follows  :  ‘  It  is  the  permanent  home  of  God. 
It  is  consecrated  by  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ. 
The  awful  splendour  which  dwelt  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies  was  but  the  symbol  and  prophecy  of  a  more 
august  manifestation  of  God  in  the  Church.  When 
its  members  are  assembled  together  in  Christ’s 
name  they  have  not  merely  the  written  records  of 
His  earthly  ministry  to  guide,  instruct,  console, 
and  animate  them ;  Christ  Himself  is  among 
them.  Nor  does  He  stand  apart  from  them, 
isolated  in  His  Divine  Majesty.  The  decisions  of 
the  Church  are  sanctioned  by  His  authority.  Its 
prayers  are  made  His  own.  ‘  For  where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  My  name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.’  It  was  for  this  lofty 
conception  of  the  functions  of  the  Church  that  the 
early  Congregationalists  endured  imprisonment, 
exile,  death.  Poor  men  and  poor  women  were 
inspired  by  it  with  the  courage  of  heroes  and  the 
endurance  of  martyrs.  They,  too,  had  seen  the 
Holy  City,  the  c  New  Jerusalem  coming  down  from 
God  out  of  Heaven,’  with  its  gates  of  pearl,  its 
foundations  of  precious  stones,  and  the  nations 
of  the  saved  walking  in  its  golden  streets.  It  was  a 
glorious  vision,  worth  suffering  for,  worth  dying 
for.”  1 

2.  Robert  Browne,  at  one  time,  and  after  him  other 
leaders, — such  as  Henry  Barrow,  John  Greenwood, 
Henry  Ainsworth, — thought  it  necessary  to  guard 
1  “  Congregationalism,”  p.  214  (in  Essays  and  Addresses). 


94 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


their  position  by  a  doctrine  of  extreme  rigour.  They 
taught  that  the  4  saints  5  must  consort  in  worship 
only  with  the  saints.  There  must  not  be  even  an 
occasional  attendance  at  the  parish  church,  or  any 
church  except  of  their  own  order.  Such  attend¬ 
ance  involved  the  risk  of  infection  by  the  evils, 
and  of  punishment  with  the  plagues,  of  Antichrist. 
There  are  cases  on  record  of  severe  censures  against 
those  who  infringed  this  rule,  and  cases  more  than 
one  of  excommunication.  The  rule  held  good  in 
some  Separatist  circles,  far  down  into  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century.  A  faint  tradition  of  it  attached 
to  Independency  here  and  there  almost  into  our 
own  time.  We  may  read  in  connection  with  not 
a  few  Independent  Churches  of  the  eighteenth 
and  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  centuries,  stories 
which  illustrate  the  feeling  that  to  be  present  in  an 
Established  Church  was  to  be  chargeable  with 
spiritual  laxity.  It  was,  of  course,  a  sad  mistake, 
and  so  far  from  being  consistent  with  the  true  idea 
of  the  Church  was  its  contradiction.  For  if  a  Church 
consist  of  those  who  share  the  same  Christian  life — 
if  the  life  is  what  matters  most — then  its  members 
must  be  in  spiritual  communion  with  every  one  in 
whom  that  life  is  present.  The  idea  is  as  Catholic 
as  the  life.  No  doubt  the  communion  comes  to  its 
best  and  fullest  expression  in  a  society  of  the  like- 
minded  ;  but  it  reaches  out  to  all  who  possess  the 
life,  whether  they  be  of  the  Society  or  no.  And 
so  a  refusal  to  join  with  the  Established  Church  at 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  95 


any  time,  or  in  any  of  its  acts  of  public  worship, 
could  be  warranted  only  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
in  no  sense  or  degree  a  Church  at  all  ;  but  was 
utterly  corrupt  in  all  its  members.  Unhappily 
this  was  the  ground  sometimes  actually  taken. 
Henry  Barrow’s  Brief e  Discoverie  of  the  False  Church , 
for  example,  is  an  elaborate  attempt  to  make  it 
good.  Even  John  Robinson,  in  his  early  days,  was 
vehemently  in  agreement  with  him. 

3.  There  came  a  time,  however,  when,  with  the 
clearer  insight  begotten  of  a  calmer  environment 
in  Holland  and  of  a  wider  experience,  Robinson, 
at  any  rate,  gained  a  freer  outlook.  He  never 
ceased  to  be  a  Separatist  in  the  sense  that  he  felt 
bound  on  the  one  hand  to  withdraw  from  what  he 
described  as  “  the  hierarchical  order  of  Church 
Government  and  ministry  and  appurtenances 
thereof,”  and,  on  the  other,  to  unite  “  in  the 
order  and  ordinances  instituted  by  Christ,  the  only 
King  and  Lord  of  His  Church,  and  by  all  His 
disciples  to  be  observed.”  But  he  learnt  to  say 
that  he  stood  in  “  all  Christian  fellowship  ”  with 
true  Christians  everywhere,  and  could  “  express 
the  same  ”  “in  all  outward  actions  and  exercises 
of  religion,  lawful  and  lawfully  done.”  1 

Robinson’s  attitude  in  this  respect  quickly  became 
that  of  the  great  majority.  It  marked  what  has 
been  called  the  second  stage  of  Congregationalism, 
and  has  been  the  prevailing  attitude  of  Congrega- 

1  Works,  vol.  iii.  pp.  377,  378. 


96 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


tionalists  ever  since — both  in  England  and  America. 
It  means  that  they  hail  as  brethren  all  true  Chris¬ 
tians,  regarding  differences  of  creed  or  polity, 
however  great,  as  of  secondary  importance  com¬ 
pared  with  the  uniting  life.1  Their  churches  are 
a  perpetual  witness  to  their  belief  that  union  can 
be  in  nothing  but  the  life  of  Christ,  and  that  schism 
lies  in  nothing  but  the  temper  or  the  teaching  which 
raises  outward  barriers  between  those  whom  the 
life  inwardly  unites.2  I  do  not  say  that  Congre- 
gationalists  have  been,  or  are,  always  true  to  their 
own  principle.  But  it  is  their  principle  that  unity 
of  life  is  the  only  real  unity  ;  and  that,  if  the  life 
of  Christ  could  obtain  free  and  unfettered  exercise 
it  would  gradually  unite  all  Christians  by  destroying 
the  very  roots  of  division,  and  would  issue  at  length 
in  a  visible  “  unity  amid  variety  55  which  would 
fulfil  Christ’s  prayer — “  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as 
Thou,  Father,  art  in  Me,  and  I  in  Thee.” 

4.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  early  Congregation- 
alists  did  not  always  apprehend  the  logic  of  their 
position.  But  there  were  two  things  they  saw 
clearly  from  the  first. 

(a)  One  was  the  true  relation  of  the  official 
ministry  to  the  Church.  Pastors,  teachers,  elders, 
deacons,  were  not  a  “  clergy.”  Their  office  was 
conferred  upon  them  by  the  collective  voice  of  the 
people  on  account  of  evident  fitness  for  specific 

1  See  detached  note  on  “  The  Apologetical  Narration.” 

2  A.  J.  Scott,  Discourses,  pp.  265,  266. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  97 


duties.  It  entitled  them  to  due  respect,  but  it 
did  not  render  their  person  more  sacred  than 
the  rest  of  the  brethren ;  did  not  relegate 
these  to  a  lower  plane  as  laymen  ;  did  not 
advance  them  in  any  way  except  in  means  and 
opportunities  of  service.  The  Church  under  Christ 
was  a  democracy.  Its  will  was  the  will  of  Christ — 
Christ  in  the  midst.  Its  officers,  therefore,  must 
hold  an  executive,  not  a  legislative,  position.  Their  / 
decisions  might  be  wise  and  good  ;  but  the  final 
decision  must  rest  with  the  commonalty  of  the 
Church.  They  could  advise  and  counsel,  exhort  and 
entreat,  but  they  could  not  dictate.  Acts  of  dis¬ 
cipline,  especially,  must  proceed  from  the  sanctified 
conscience  of  the  whole  Church,  and  they  must 
be  content  to  submit  their  own  conduct  to  the 
same  judgment.  This  position  was  considered  as 
dangerous  as  it  was  novel  by  outsiders  and  by  some 
inside,  at  first.  There  was  a  fierce  contention  over 
it  in  the  exiled  London  Church  at  Amsterdam, 
early  in  the  reign  of  James  i.  Francis  Johnson, 
the  pastor,  who  had  been  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
practically  reverted  to  Thomas  Cartwright’s  view 
that  the  Elders — a  name  for  the  whole  official 
ministry — though  elected  by  the  Church — were 
elected  to  rule  the  Church.  He  went  the  length  of 
maintaining  that  the  command  “  Tell  it  to  the 
Church  ”  meant  “  Tell  it  to  the  Elders.”  He  would 
have  made  the  Eldership  an  Imperium  in  Imperio — 
with  the  last  word  in  everything.  On  the  other 
7 


98 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


hand,  Henry  Ainsworth,  the  teacher,  fought  with 
all  his  might  for  the  complete  autonomy  of  the 
Church.  John  Robinson,  then  in  Leyden,  backed 
him  up,  and  both  appealed  for  support  to  the 
first  leaders,  Browne  and  Barrow.  They  were 
right.  They  were  right,  too,  in  declaring  that 
the  point  is  vital  to  the  Congregational  case.  There 
can  be  no  Church  if  there  be  those  in  the  Church  who 
assert  an  independent  authority  over  it.  “  One  is 
your  Master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.” 
But  how  can  the  Church  be  qualified  to  rule  itself  ? 
Only  on  one  condition,  viz.  that  all  its  several 
wills  be  in  harmony  with  the  will  of  Christ. 

(b)  This  is  the  second  point  with  regard  to  which 
the  early  Congregationalists  were  clear.  Hence  their 
insistence  on  discipline,  that  is  to  say,  on  a  vigilant 
i  care  for  the  Christian  character  of  their  communion. 
At  times  it  was  misdirected  and  overdone,  with  bad 
results.  Every  one  who  has  heard  of  Brownism 
has  heard  of  the  discipline  “  troubles  ”  that  split 
the  Church  at  Middelburg  and  the  Church  at 
Amsterdam.  These  were  made  the  most  of  by 
satirical  observers  and  are  apt  to  figure  largely  in 
what  may  be  said  by  the  modern  critic.  I  think, 
indeed,  it  is  still  a  common  notion  that  Congrega¬ 
tionalists  spend  most  of  their  time  in  watching  one 
another  and  correcting  each  his  neighbours’  faults. 
But,  though  often  absurdly  applied,  the  rule  of 
discipline,  with  a  view  to  purity  of  membership,  was, 
and  is,  of  the  first  importance.  Devout  members 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  99 


of  the  Church  of  England  have  always  bemoaned 
its  want  of  a  sufficient  power  to  exclude  openly 
unworthy  communicants.  It  was  a  chief  contention 
of  all  Puritans  that  means  must  be  found  to  ensure 
some  evident  correspondence  between  the  profession 
and  conduct  of  Church  members.  Presbyterians 
like  Thomas  Cartwright  made  more  of  this,  and  of 
discipline  to  this  end,  than  of  anything  else.  But 
the  Congregationalist  had  to  insist  upon  it,  if  his 
idea  of  the  Church  as  a  communion  of  sincerely 
Christian  people  was  to  have  any  force.  He  had  to 
insist  that  the  life  of  the  Church  should  be  a  Christian 
life.  Moral  purity  was  the  root  of  its  spiritual 
health,  its  singleness  of  eye,  its  power  of  self-control, 
its  peace,  its  influence  on  the  world.  We  might 
hesitate  to  say  that  the  Congregationalist  believed 
with  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  that  “  the  root  of  all 
evil  in  the  Church  ”  has  been  “  the  imagination 
that  it  exists  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  foster 
virtue,  or  can  be  prosperous  save  so  far  as  it  does 
this.”  He  believed  that  the  Church  exists  for  other 
purposes  than  merely  to  foster  virtue.  In  his  view 
it  was  more  than  an  ethical  society.  But  he  knew, 
from  what  he  saw  around  him,  tha,t  the  highest  powers 
of  a  Church  are  destroyed  by  the  condonement  of 
moral  evil ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  removal  of  this 
must  be  an  object  of  his  sedulous  care.  So  his 
theory  was,  first  of  all,  that  entrance  to  the  Church 
must  be  barred  except  to  those  who  make  a  willing 
covenant  of  obedience  to  Christ  ;  and  that  then, 


100  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


in  a  spirit  of  love  and  meekness,  its  members  must 
watch  over  one  another,  must  exhort  and  admonish 
one  another,  and  must  do  this  publicly,  as  well  as 
privately,  in  case  of  need.  But  his  chief  reliance 
was  on  the  effect  of  fellowship  in  the  common 
exercises  of  the  Church — prayer  and  praise,  preach¬ 
ing  of  the  word,  the  communion  of  the  Lord’s  Supper. 
He  believed  that  by  means  of  these  “  a  spirit  of 
discipline,”  due  to  the  realised  presence  of  the 
Holy  Christ,  could  not  but  be  fostered ;  hence 
meetings  for  such  “  exercises  ”  took  the  foremost 
place.  They  were  not  confined  to  Sunday.  Not 
seldom  they  came  twice  or  thrice  during  the  week. 
And  whatever  mistakes  arose  now  and  then  in 
connexion  with  specific  cases — mistakes  occasioned 
by  a  too  rigid  conception  of  Christian  conduct  or 
doctrine — it  is  certain  that  far  more  often  than 
not  the  soul  of  the  Church  became  a-thrill  with  the 
sense  of  a  quickening,  cleansing,  uplifting  com¬ 
munion.  Here  are  three  testimonies,  by  no  means 
singular,  quoted  by  Dr.  Mackennal : 1 — 

“‘If  ever  I  saw  the  beauty  of  Zion’  (said  John 
Robinson  with  reference  to  the  church  meetings  in 
Leyden),  ‘and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filling  His 
tabernacle,  it  hath  been  in  the  manifestation  of  the 
divers  graces  of  God  in  the  Church,  in  that  heavenly 
harmony  and  comely  order  wherein,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  we  are  set  and  walk.’ 

“  Henry  Barrow — courtier,  law  student,  man  of 
the  world — said  the  same  thing  of  the  Church  in 

1  The  Evolution  of  Congregationalism,  pp.  77-79. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  101 


London.  4  The  solitary  and  contemplative  life,’ 
said  Lancelot  Andrewes 1  to  him  when  he  was  in 
gaol,  CI  hold  the  most  blessed  life.  It  is  the  life 
I  would  choose.’  Barrow’s  reply  shows  something 
of  the  inner  life  of  the  Church  for  whose  sake  he 
was  suffering.  4  You  speak  philosophically,  but  not 
Christianly.  So  sweet  is  the  harmony  of  God’s  graces 
unto  me  in  the  congregation,  and  the  conversation  of 
the  saints  at  all  times,  as  I  think  myself  as  a  sparrow 
on  the  housetop  when  I  am  exiled  from  them.’ 

44  To  the  like  effect  was  Dr.  Dale’s  description 
of  his  own  experience.  4  To  be  at  a  church 
meeting — apart  from  any  prayer  that  is  offered, 
any  hymn  that  is  sung,  any  words  that  are 
spoken,  is  for  me  one  of  the  chief  means  of  grace. 
To  know  that  I  am  surrounded  by  men  and 
women  who  dwell  in  God,  who  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  with  whom  I  am  to  share  the  eternal 
righteousness  and  eternal  rapture  of  the  great  life 
to  come,  this  is  blessedness.  I  breathe  a  Divine 
Air.  I  am  in  the  New  Jerusalem,  which  has  come 
down  out  of  Heaven  from  God,  and  the  nations  of 
the  saved  are  walking  its  streets  of  Gold.  I  rejoice 
in  the  joy  of  Christ  over  those  whom  He  has  delivered 
from  Eternal  Death  and  lifted  into  the  light  and  glory 
of  God.  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  there.’  ” 

I  admit  the  comparative  infrequency  of  such 
experiences.  Too  often  the  church  meeting  comes 
far  short  of  this  high  level,  though  not  so  often  per¬ 
haps  as  may  be  supposed.  Every  Congregational 
church  worthy  of  its  name  attains  to  it  sometimes  ; 
and  it  does  so  when  its  main  concern  is  not  for 
numbers  or  any  outward  prosperity  but  for  the 
Christian  purity  of  its  fellowship. 

1  Afterwards  Bishop. 


102  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

l  5.  If  I  were  required  to  say,  “  What  is  of  faith  5 5 — 
permanent  and  unchanging — in  Congregationalism, 
I  think  it  has  now  been  stated,  viz.  a  Church  is  a 
visible  society  of  those  who  commune  together  in  the 
powers  of  a  common  life  derived  from  Christ,  who 
are  spiritually  equal  by  virtue  of  a  direct  personal 
relation  to  Him — servants  and  brethren  one  of 
another ;  and  who  are  inspired  by  an  esprit  de 
corps,  a  moral  enthusiasm,  a  spirit  of  discipline, 
which  aims  both  instinctively  and  deliberately  to 
reject  what  is  alien,  and  assimilate  what  is  akin, 
to  the  growth  of  a  perfect  Christian  character. 

This,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  substantial  core  of  the 

I  Congregational  (including  the  Baptist)  witness. 

As  already  said,  its  early  advocates,  though 
swift  to  see  some  of  its  implications,  were  slow  to 
see  others  ;  nor  did  they  draw  a  clear  line  between 
the  essential  and  circumstantial.  Much  that  was 
more  or  less  adventitious  continued  to  overlay 
and  obscure  the  main  things.  Time  only  could 
teach  the  great  lesson — a  lesson  not  quite  learnt 
even  yet — I  mean  the  lesson  that  “  the  life  is  more 
than  the  meat  and  the  body  than  the  raiment.” 
In  other  words,  that  sacraments,  ministry,  modes  of 
worship,  organisation,  confessions,  or  creeds  are  of 
no  value  except  as  means  to  an  end.  If  they  help 
to  build  up  the  Church’s  life  in  Christ  and  for 
Christ  they  are  so  far  good ;  and  by  that  test  are 
to  be  constantly  judged.  Every  Church  will  learn 
this  lesson  sooner  or  later, 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  103 


I  wish  to  illustrate  in  two  or  three  instances  how 
Congregationalists  have  learnt,  or  are  learning,  or 
have  failed  to  learn  it. 

Thus  (a)  with  regard  to  the  Sacraments  they  have 
been  consistent  in  holding  that  two  only  were  in¬ 
stituted  by  Christ,  and  that  these  were  meant  to 
be  of  lasting  obligation.  They  have,  too,  always 
been  anxious  to  observe  them  in  a  spirit  of  reverent 
obedience  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  But  their  way  of 
interpreting  and  using  them  has  varied  somewhat.1 
If  we  turn  to  Robert  Browne  we  find  that  Baptism 
is  viewed  as  the  seal  of  a  covenant,  whereby,  on 
God's  part,  the  gift  of  His  spirit,  as  an  inward  calling 
and  furtherance  of  godliness,  is  promised ;  and 
whereby,  on  our  part,  we  offer  and  give  up  ourselves, 
or  our  children,  or  others — being  of  tender  age, 
if  they  be  of  our  household  and  we  have  full  power 
over  them — to  be  of  the  Church  and  people  of  God. 

1  Concerning  sacramental  grace  generally,  the  “Savoy  Declaration  ” 
of  1658 — the  most  classic  statement  of  the  older  Congregationalism 
— speaks  thus  (cap.  xxviii.  §  3)  :  “  The  grace  which  is  exhibited 
in  or  by  the  Sacraments  rightly  used,  is  not  conferred  by  any  power 
in  them,  neither  doth  the  efficacy  of  a  Sacrament  depend  upon  the 
piety  or  intention  of  him  ^hat  doth  administer  it,  but  upon  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  word  of  institution  which  contains,  together 
with  a  precept  authorising  the  use  thereof,  a  promise  of  benefit  to 
worthy  receivers.”  Adopted  by  a  Massachusetts  Synod  at  Boston  in 
1680,  and  by  a  Connecticut  Synod  at  Saybrook  in  1708,  the  “  Savoy 
Declaration”  (as  to  its  Confession  of  Faith)  long  continued  to  be  a 
recognised  standard  for  the  Congregational  churches  of  America. 
At  a  council  representative  of  the  whole  body  of  the  Congregational 
churches  of  the  United  States  it  was  reaffirmed  in  1865.  Its  vogue 
among  the  English  churches  was  much  less  general.  (See  Dr. 
’WiUaston  Walker’s  Greeds  and  Platforms  of  Congregationalism,  p.  353. ) 


104  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Water  is  necessary,  but  the  manner  of  applying  it 
is  indifferent — it  may  be  by  washing,  or  sprinkling, 
or  dipping.  The  rite  must  be  performed  in  a  public 
or  holy  assembly.  It  must  be  accompanied  by 
preaching  of  the  word,  and  only  a  pastor  can  duly 
administer  it.  It  must  proceed  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  unto 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  dying  thereunto  in  one 
death  and  burial  with  Christ,  and  the  preacher  must 
pronounce  the  subjects  to  be  baptized  into  the  body 
and  government  of  Christ,  to  be  taught  and  to  profess 
His  laws.  Then,  finally,  the  Church  must  give 
thanks  for  “  the  party  baptized,”  and  pray  for  his 
further  instruction  and  training  unto  salvation. 
Here  it  is  noticeable  that  the  name  Psedo-Baptists 
would  be  unsuitable  as  descriptive  of  Congregational 
practice.  This  included  not  merely  infants,  or  young 
people,  but  also  ail  believing  confessors.  Moreover, 
in  the  case  of  infants  the  whole  Church  may  be  said  to 
have  stood  sponsor — pledging  itself  to  bring  them  up 
in  the  Lord.  We  find  the  same  view  taken  in  the 
“  True  Confession  of  Faith  ”  put  forth  by  “  the  people 
falsely  called  Brownists  ”  in  1596 — sixteen  years 
later  ;  and  again  in  a  document  of  1603  exhibiting 
the  points  of  difference  between  Congregationalists 
and  the  Church  of  England.  To  the  like  effect  is 
the  chapter  on  Baptism  (xxix.)  in  the  “  Savoy 
Declaration  ”  of  1658,  which  expressed  the  “  Faith 
and  order  owned  and  practised  in  the  Congregational 
Churches  ”  of  England  at  that  time.  It  is  surely 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  105 


a  worthy  view  ;  and,  while  attaching  to  Baptism 
no  mechanical  notion  of  grace,  would  ensure  its 
being  a  spiritual  means  of  grace  to  all  concerned. 
It  is  a  view  also,  in  which  I  think  so-called  Baptists, 
with  some  surrender  of  detail,  might  reasonably 
agree.  But  in  more  recent  days  the  Congregational 
attitude  to  Baptism  has  changed — not  wholly  for 
the  better. 

It  is,  indeed,  to  the  good  that  noiv  others  besides 
the  pastor  may,  on  occasion,  administer  it — if 
they  are  Christian  believers.  This  plainly  is  a 
legitimate  deduction  from  the  doctrine  that  office 
in  the  Church  withdraws  no  right  from  the  Church 
itself.  It  is  also  to  the  good  that  Baptism  is  not 
now  confined  to  the  children  of  believing  parents — 
one  or  both.  For  that  is  a  change  due  to  escape 
from  the  Calvinistic  conception  of  a  limited  cove¬ 
nant — a  covenant  for  the  elect  only — to  the  con¬ 
ception  of  a  grace,  which  is  in  covenant,  or  saving 
relation,  to  all  mankind.  It  is  a  change  which  can 
do  justice  to  the  words  “  of  such  is  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven,”  and  so  claims  every  child  for  God. 

It  is,  however,  not  to  the  good  that  Baptism 
too  often  is  made  to  seem  a  mere  act  of  formal 
dedication  to  God  without  any  definite  reminder 
of  the  Church’s  relation,  or  even  God’s  relation,  to 
the  child.  Too  often  neither  the  parent  nor  the 
child  is  taught  to  assume  any  responsibility,  and 
the  child  is  left  in  ignorance  of  the  holy  and  blessed 
fellowship  with  himself  and  His  people  into  which 


106  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


God,  through  Christ,  has  called  him.  This  is  a 
comparatively  poor  view  of  Baptism,  and  entails 
a  loss  of  grace  upon  both  child  and  Church. 

I  think  that  a  similar  loss  has  followed  our  change 
of  view  with  regard  to  the  Lord’s  Supper.  To 
the  early  Congregationalists  it  was  far  more  a  com¬ 
munion  than  a  commemoration.  They  saw  in  it 
the  crowning  act  of  Redemption  perpetually  set 
forth  by  the  living  Lord  in  their  midst.  He  was 
the  Host,  they  were  the  guests  gathered  at  His 
table.  By  faith  they  saw  Him  as  really  as  the 
disciples  in  the  upper  room.  They  heard  Him  say 
over  again  the  sweet  and  solemn  words  with  which 
He  gave  the  bread  and  wine.  He  renewed  to  them 
the  experience  of  what  by  the  bread  and  wine  He 
meant  to  convey.  They  were  one  body  in  Him — 
all  partaking  of  the  same  spiritual  meat  and  the 
same  spiritual  drink. 

In  the  words  of  the  Savoy  Declaration,  “  worthy 
receivers  outwardly  partaking  of  the  visible  elements 
of  this  Sacrament  do  then  also  inwardly,  by  faith, 
really  and  indeed,  yet  not  carnally  and  corporally, 
but  spiritually  receive  and  feed  upon  Christ  crucified 
and  all  benefits  of  His  death.”  Thus  the  Lord’s 
Supper  seals  “  their  spiritual  nourishment  and 
growth  in  Him,  their  further  engagement  in  and 
to  all  duties  which  they  owe  unto  Him,”  and  is 
“  a  bond  and  pledge  of  their  communion  with  Him 
&nd  with  each  other.”  1  But  in  the  course  of  the 

1  Cap.  xxx.  §§  7,  and  i. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  107 


eighteenth  century,  partly  as  the  result  of  an 
extreme  reaction  from  everything  supposed  to  be 
Romish,  and  partly  as  the  result  of  a  rationalism 
which  destroyed  all  sense  of  the  mystical  in  religion, 
the  Congregational  Churches  forgot,  to  a  great 
extent,  their  proper  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 
They  lapsed  into  what  is  often  styled,  per¬ 
haps  misstyled,  sheer  Zwinglianism.  The  Lord’s 
Supper  became  merely  a  memento  of  the  Past, 
and  faith  an  effort  to  recall  what  once  had  been 
rather  than  a  realisation  of  what  eternally  is.  This 
impoverished  attitude  of  mind  persisted  far  into 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  has  still  many  repre¬ 
sentatives.  Reaction  toward  the  older  and  truer 
view  was  set  going  under  the  influence  of  the 
Evangelical  Revival,  and  has  been  strengthened 
in  more  recent  times  by  stimulus  from  the  Oxford 
movement.1 

(b)  Church  polity  is  another  matter  in  reference 
to  which  there  has  been  a  change.  A.  J.  Scott, 
first  Principal  of  Owens  College,  now  Manchester 
University,  in  one  of  his  “  Discourses  ”  spoke  of 
two  parties  who  “  agree  in  representing  the  Church 
as  bound  to  a  certain  system  of  government  and 
instruction.”  One  party  he  named  the  Traditionist, 
the  other  the  Biblicist.  The  former  “  allow  the 
precepts  and  examples  of  the  Bible  to  be  law, 
but  not  of  that  fullness  and  clearness  that  is  needed 

1  Cf.  Dale,  “  The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,”  pp.  298-398  in 
Essays  and  Addresses , 


108  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


for  application  to  the  daily  wants  of  the  Church.” 
Hence  the  further  need  of  a  chart  which  shall  inter¬ 
pret  Biblical  precepts  and  examples  for  our  guid¬ 
ance  in  the  present ;  and  such  a  chart  of  Divine 
authority  is  to  be  found  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Church.  “  Christ,  who  hath  promised  to  be  with 
her  to  the  end  of  the  world,  hath  been  with  her ; 
and  whatever  she  hath  ordered  under  His  presi¬ 
dency  hath,  for  ever,  all  the  force  that  He  can  give 
it.”  On  the  other  hand,  the  Biblicist  teaches  that 
the  whole  “  platform  and  regulation  of  the  Church 
is  laid  down  in  Scripture  ;  in  the  injunctions  and 
examples  of  the  Lord  and  His  inspired  ambassadors, 
and  of  that  Primitive  Church  which  was  under 
their  guidance.  It  is  not  enough  that  we  do  not 
vary  from  their  theology,  or  from  their  spirit  ; 
or,  rather,  if  we  abide  in  these,  we  shall  be  sure 
to  abide  in  the  practice  of  their  forms  and  methods 
also.  And  these  are  recorded  in  Scripture  ade¬ 
quately  for  our  present  use.  The  ordinance  that 
we  find  there  is  divine  and  good  ;  the  ordinance 
that  we  do  not  find  there  is  merely  human  and 
bad.”  The  early  Congregationalists,  in  common 
with  the  Puritans  generally,  were  strict  Biblicists. 
For  every  detail  of  their  Church  polity  supposed 
proof  was  drawn  from  some  text  or  type  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  They  thought  it  blasphemous  to  suggest 
that  Christ  left,  or  could  leave,  His  Church  without 
a  pattern  as  clear  and  complete  as  that  which 
Moses  received  in  the  mount  for  the  Tabernacle, 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  109 


It  was  in  a  spirit  of  childlike  (Hooker  thought 
childish)  obedience  that  they  tried  to  reconstruct 
and  realise  this  pattern.  Of  course  they  were 
wrong.  Mr.  Scott,  in  the  “Discourse”  just  now 
quoted,  defines  the  first  principle  of  Church  govern¬ 
ment  as  “  the  exercise  of  spiritual  wisdom  on  the 
part  of  the  Church  in  the  selection  of  means  fitted 
to  promote  the  great  end  of  her  being,”  which  is 
to  make  man  one  with  God,  and  thereby  also  one 
with  his  fellow-man.  “As  in  things  natural  so 
in  the  grand  spiritual  society  also,  the  means  are 
good  because  of  their  fitness  to  attain  the  end,  and 
for  no  other  reason.” 

In  a  sense  this  was  Hooker’s  principle  :  for  it  was 
the  purpose  of  his  “  Treatise  ”  to  show  that  the 
Church  has  freedom,  in  the  light  of  reason  and 
experience,  to  determine,  from  time  to  time,  all 
questions  relating  to  its  own  organisation.  But 
his  Church  resolved  itself  into  the  rulers  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Church’s  freedom  into  a  right  of 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  first  four  or  five 
centuries.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  principle  is 
implicit  in  Congregationalism  in  its  finest  form. 
For,  if  the  life  of  Christ,  expressed  in  a  communion 
of  saints,  makes  the  essence  of  a  Church,  then  it 
must  be  that  “  the  Church  of  every  age  is  perfectly 
free  to  make  the  organisation  the  closest  expression 
of  its  highest  life,  and  the  most  effective  means  for 
securing  the  purpose  for  which  an  organised  Church 
exists.”  But  this  means  that  the  life  resident  in 


110  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


the  Church  as  a  whole  creates  the  form.  “  The 
polity  must  come  from  within  ;  it  must  not  be 
imposed  from  without  ;  it  may  recognise  external 
circumstances,  but  must  not  be  controlled  by  them.” 
It  is  an  organic  growth.  “  The  polity  of  the 
Church  must  be  created  by  the  idea  of  the  Church.” 

Congregationalists  have  often  been  but  imper¬ 
fectly  conscious  alike  of  their  liberty  and  its  limita¬ 
tions  in  this  respect.  Sometimes  their  mistake 
has  been  to  sacrifice  the  healthy  development  of 
life  to  an  unintelligent  conservatism ;  sometimes 
their  mistake  has  been  the  reverse,  viz.  to  risk 
vital  interests  by  indulging  an  irresponsible  spirit 
of  adventure,  and  welcoming  what  is  novel  in 
Church  practice  for  the  sake  of  some  secondary  gain. 

But,  on  the  whole,  their  perception  of  the  true  law 
of  progress  has  become  increasingly  clear. 

They  have  learnt  to  see  more  and  more  that  the 
Church  is  free  to  abandon  the  old  or  accept  the  new 
just  so  far  as  old  or  new  tends  to  conserve  and 
cherish  its  best  life.  Dr.  Mackennal  was  of  opinion 
that  Congregationalism  and  Presbyterianism  are 
not  incompatible,  and  that  Episcopacy,  that  is,  the 
constitutional  authority,  for  certain  purposes,  of 
the  specially  gifted  and  experienced  man,  might 
coexist  with  Congregational  autonomy  and  repre¬ 
sentative  government  of  the  united  churches  for 
common  ends. 

Perhaps  so ;  but,  if  so,  the  movement  in  that 
direction  cannot  be  forced  from  without — it  must 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  111 


come  as  a  demand  and  necessity  of  that  spiritual 
life  which  all  churches  really  feel  to  be  supreme.1 

(c)  It  is  jealousy  for  the  free  play  of  that  life  and 
a  faith  in  its  divine  capabilities  which  explain  the 
Congregational  relation  to  the  State  and  to  creeds. 

That  relation  has  not  been  uniform.  We  have 
seen  that  Robert  Browne  had  no  objection  to  the  in¬ 
terference  of  the  Prince,  nor  had  Henry  Barrow  or 
John  Robinson,  nor  had  Congregationalists  of  the 
second  generation  like  Henry  Jacob.  But  the  inter¬ 
ference  they  allowed  was  within  certain  definite  limits. 

He  could  not  gather  or  establish  a  Church,  for 
Church  members  are  of  the  willing  sort.  Once 
gathered,  however,  the  Prince,  having  previously 
made  himself  acquainted  with  the  truth  about  the 
Church  and  joined  its  membership,  should  stand 
ready  to  supervise  the  Church  and  see  that  it 
actually  conformed  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ.  He 
should  also  suppress  opposing  errors  and  practices. 

Dr.  Dale  is  quite  right  when  he  describes  the  early 

1  Experiments  towards  (at  least)  a  Presbyterianising  of  Congrega¬ 
tionalism  have  been  more  frequent  and  systematic  in  New  England 
than  here.  Compare,  for  instance,  the  “  Proposals  of  1705,  and 
the  Saybrook  Platform  of  1708  ”  (chap.  xv.  of  Dr.  Willaston  Walker’s 
Creeds  and  Platforms).  The  history  and  circumstances  of  the  New 
England  churches  gave  occasion,  and  might  seem  to  promise  success, 
to  such  experiments.  But  even  so  they  were  defeated  by  the  superior 
force  of  the  Congregational  principle.  In  Massachusetts  “  the 
Proposals  were  never  prosecuted  beyond  mere  proposals,”  because 
“  there  were  some  very  considerable  persons  among  the  ministers, 
as  well  as  of  the  Brethren,  who  thought  the  liberties  of  particular 
churches  to  be  in  danger  of  being  too  much  limited  and  infringed 
in  them.”  In  Connecticut  they  fared  better,  but  mainly  through 
being  artificially  sustained  by  the  civil  authority. 


112  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Congregational  struggle  as  a  struggle  for  the  rights 
of  Christ.  “When  cby  one  blast  of  Queen  Eliza¬ 
beth’s  trumpet  ’  all  Englishmen  were  made  members 
of  the  national  Church,  and  were  required,  under 
penalty,  to  attend  its  services,  the  complaint  of 
the  Congregationalists  was  not  that  the  Queen  had 
trampled  on  the  personal  rights  and  violated  the 
freedom  of  the  English  people,  but  that  she  had 
usurped  the  authority  of  Christ.  4  No  prince  can 
make  any  a  member  of  the  Church.’  ” 1  But 
Dr.  Dale  does  not  seem  to  see  that  this  contention 
for  the  authority  of  Christ  went  hand  in  hand,  for 
these  men,  with  the  contention  that  if  the  State 
did  its  duty  it  would  do  more  than  passively  respect 
the  rights  of  Christ — it  would  actively  enforce  them. 

This  is  why  the  early  Independents  could  condemn 
persecution  of  themselves  and  at  the  same  time 
tolerate,  or  even  approve,  persecution  of  others. 

They  were  ensnared  by  the  usual  sophism  that, 
since  their  doctrine  was  the  truth,  it  was  just  for 
them  to  be  encouraged  and  for  its  adversaries  to  be 
put  down. 

From  this  standpoint  the  church  -  state  which 
the  Congregationalists  of  New  England  set  up 
(in  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut),  and  zealously 
guarded  against  intrusive  heresy,  was  not  incon¬ 
sistent.2 

1  Essays  and  Addresses,  p,  217. 

2  It  is  necessary,  however,  to  distinguish  between  the  “  Pilgrim 
Fathers”  of  New  Plymouth  and  the  “Puritans  ”  of  the  Bay.  The 
latter  adopted  Congregationalism  from  the  former,  but  not  their 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  113 


It  was  Brownism  or  Barrowism  full  blown.  It 
actualised  what  might  have  come  to  pass  in 
England  if  events  had  not  been  so  ordered  as  to 
keep  the  Independent  well  under  the  Cross  until  he 
had  grasped  the  scope  of  his  own  principles.  For 
the  most  part  he  had  done  this  by  the  time  Cromwell 
held  the  reins,  and  by  none  more  fully  than  by  Crom¬ 
well  himself.  But  it  was  still  the  opinion  of  Con- 
gregationalists  in  1658,  when  they  issued  the  Savoy 
Confession  of  Faith,  that  the  “  magistrate  is  bound 
to  encourage,  promote,  and  protect  the  professor 
and  profession  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  manage  and 
order  civil  administrations  in  a  due  subserviency 
to  the  interests  of  Christ  in  the  world  ” — though 
this  did  not  exclude  equal  treatment  of  various 
Church  polities.  It  has  often  been  said  that  the 
great  difference  between  the  Independents  and  the 
Presbyterians  was  that  the  latter  desired  a  State 
establishment  of  the  Church  and  the  former  did  not. 
I  confess  that  I  do  not  so  read  the  case.  I  think 
the  Independents  down  to  a  comparatively  late 
period  would  have  rejoiced  if  the  State  had  decreed 
that  Independency  expressed  the  truth  and  that 
none  but  Independent  churches  should  be  established. 

As  it  was,  it  is  historic  fact  that,  even  into  the 
eighteenth  century,  they  allowed  the  right  (if  not 
the  duty)  of  the  State  to  favour  the  Church  which  it 

liberalism.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  no  charge  of  “  persecution  ”  can 
be  proved  against  the  “  Pilgrims.”  Political  no  less  than  religious 
tolerance  was  rooted  in  their  faith — that  there  is  no  finality  in 
doctrine.  (See  Mackennal,  The  Evolution  of  Congregationalism ,  p.  80. ) 

8 


114  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


believed  to  be  the  true  Church  ;  and  did  not  get 
beyond  the  view  that  it  ought,  nevertheless,  to  pro¬ 
tect  Dissenters  from  molestation  and  civil  injustice. 

But  the  Congregational  plea  in  relation  to  the 
State  is  properly  this  : — 

The  State  is  ordained  of  God  ;  its  functions  are 
of  vast  and  sacred  importance  ;  it  ought  to  be 
animated  by  a  conscience  of  religion  and  a  high 
moral  ideal ;  and  it  is  the  task  of  the  Church  to 
create  and  develop  that  conscience. 

But  the  Church  herself  is  the  home  of  a  life  of 
which  Christ  is  the  immanent  source  and  stay, 
guide,  and  Lord. 

She  is  dependent  on  Him  and  accountable  to  Him 
from  first  to  last. 

To  hear  His  voice  in  her  heart,  to  understand 
and  observe  His  behests,  is  her  holiest  concern.  For 
the  State,  therefore,  to  interfere  in  what  she  says  and 
does  is  as  much  out  of  place  as  if  the  State  were  to 
undertake  to  regulate  the  motions  of  a  poet’s  genius. 

Except  in  respect  of  indirect  influences,  she  lies 
outside  its  province  altogether. 

For  a  like  reason,  if  in  a  less  degree,  she  must 
repudiate  the  interference  of  any  external  authority 
— of  Presbytery  or  Synod  or  Council — save  so  far 
as  these  may  declare  what  commends  itself  to  the 
corporate  judgment  of  each  responsible  Church  unit 
or  congregation. 

She  is  in  each  of  these  a  law  to  herself  because 
immediately  under  law  to  Christ, 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  115 


(i d )  It  is  from  the  same  high  ground  that  the  Con- 
gregationalist  deprecates  the  imposition  of  creeds. 

Creeds  are  a  natural  expression  of  faith.  They 
are  faith’s  articulate  utterance.  And  there  are 
fundamentals  of  the  Christian  creed  which  a  Con¬ 
gregational  Church  could  not  disown  without  dis¬ 
owning  itself.  It  stakes  its  existence  upon  belief  in 
a  risen,  exalted,  unchanging  Christ — the  Revealer  of 
the  Father,  the  Redeemer  of  man,  the  Mediator  of 
truth  and  grace  through  a  living  Spirit.  These  are 
facts  of  the  universal  Christian  consciousness  which 
are  the  soul  of  its  soul.  Nor  has  the  Congregation- 
alist  ever  hesitated  to  confess  this — his  fundamental 
faith — together  with  such  inferences  from  it  as  the 
measure  of  his  insight  might  warrant. 

Congregational  confessions  began  with  the  first 
Congregational  Churches.  Browne’s  church  at 
Norwich  and  Middelburg  had  one  ;  the  Barrowist 
church  of  London  and  Amsterdam  had  more  than 
one.  Dr.  Willaston  Walker,  of  Hartford  Theological 
seminary,  has  compiled  and  edited  what  he  calls 
The  Creeds  and  Platforms  of  Congregationalism ,  in  a 
large  volume  which  shows  how  in  England  and  New 
England  the  Congregational  Churches  have  been 
almost  too  anxious  to  announce  and  assert  their 
orthodoxy. 

But  in  theory  the  Creed  has  always  been  the 
voluntary  confession  of  a  faith  answering  to  present 
conviction,  and  not  something  to  be  imposed  from 
outside  as  final,  or  imposed  at  all.  John  Robin- 


116  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

son’s  parting  advice  to  his  flock  at  Delft  Haven 
(July  22,  1620),  when  he  “charged  them  before 
God  and  His  blessed  Angels  to  follow  him  no 
further  than  he  followed  Christ  .  .  .  for  he  was 
very  confident  the  Lord  had  yet  more  truth  and 
light  to  break  forth  out  of  His  holy  Word,”  has 
been  a  cherished  watchword.  Many  a  time  has 
it  been  forgotten ;  and  many  a  Congregational 
Church  has  forged  its  creed  into  a  chain.  But  it 
remains  true  that  Congregationalism  is  weighted 
and  held  back  by  no  authoritative  creed.  Why  ? 
Certainly  not  because  it  stands  by  a  mere  right  of 
private  judgment.  “  Those  who  speak  of  rights 
that  men  have  to  entertain  what  opinions  they 
like  use  one  of  the  strangest  expressions  that  ever 
came  from  human  lips — as  if  opinion  were  to  be 
mere  matter  of  liking  in  any  sense.  We  are  not  to 
believe  anything  because  we  like  ;  we  are  to  believe 
because  we  are  bound  to  believe,  because  we  are 
bound  to  seek  to  know  the  truth,  discerning  what 
commends  itself  as  the  truth.  It  would  scarcely  be 
unsafe  to  say  that  this  is  the  only  thing  over  which 
a  man  has  no  right  at  all,  but  which  has  an  absolute 
and  infinite  right  over  him  ;  for  all  things  to  which 
he  ought  to  submit  are  included  in  its  claim  upon 
him.”  1 

Accordingly,  it  is  not  the  right  of  private  judg¬ 
ment,  but  the  august  nature  of  truth  ;  and,  even 
more  ,the  assurance  of  its  being  within  our  own  reach, 

1  A-  J-  Scott,  Discourses,  p.  274, 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  117 


open  to  our  own  reason  and  concience,  which  forbids 
the  imposition  of  creeds.  Christ  in  the  midst  means 
a  spirit  of  Truth  in  the  midst ;  and  is  an  imperative 
call,  as  well  as  a  gracious  permission,  to  follow  its 
guidance.  We  may  make  too  much  of  the  teaching 
function  of  the  Church,  and  too  little  of  its  learning 
function.  Christ’s  promise  of  inward  guidance 
extends  to  all  truth,  all  the  truth  bound  up  in 
Himself,  and  dare  we  say  that  the  truth  of  any 
creed,  or  all  the  creeds,  is  all  the  truth  bound  up  in 
Christ?  The  Spirit  whose  working  in  the  life  of 
the  first  disciples  brought  forth  the  original  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  great  writings  that  enshrine  it  ; 
the  Spirit  whose  working  in  other  times  has  again 
and  again  brought  to  remembrance  forgotten  or 
neglected  truths  that  were  Christ’s  own,  and  rein¬ 
stated  them  in  power  ;  the  Spirit  whose  working 
has  evinced  the  harmony  there  ever  is  between  the 
mind  of  Christ  and  whatever  truth  the  mind  of  man 
may  reach  in  any  sphere — this  Spirit  is  the  abiding 
possession  of  the  Church.  “  He  has  not  left  the 
Christian  people,  but  is  still  leading  them  toward 
the  full  truth  and  the  perfect  character  in  fellow¬ 
ship  with  God.  He  is  the  present  Guide  of  the 
Christian  experience  and  the  Christian  thought. 
His  leading  has  never  imparted  infallibility  to  men, 
for  an  obvious  reason  :  men  could  not  receive  it 
sufficiently  to  become  infallible.  He  did  not 
render  early  Councils  infallible,  nor  does  He  free 
individuals  or  Churches  from  all  error  now  ;  and 


118 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


yet  both  then  and  now  His  leading  is  real  and  divine. 
It  is  the  privilege  of  Christians  to  recognise  His 
guidance  as  a  present  fact,  and  to  trust  it  as  the 
hope  of  the  Church  ;  a  privilege  often  overlooked 
and  never  fully  utilised,  but  very  precious.”  1 

This  is  indeed  the  best  gift  of  God  to  His  Church. 
It  is  the  gift  of  the  New  Covenant  of  which  Jeremiah 
dreamed.  And  it  is  a  part  of  its  preciousness  that 
it  is  not  limited  to  any  official  section  of  the  Church 
or  to  any  official  channel.  It  bestows  an  inner 
light  upon  those  who  are  pure  in  heart — whatever 
be  their  social  rank  or  stage  of  culture — an  inner 
light  enabling  them  to  discern  the  truth  which  is, 
or  is  not,  embodied  in  a  creed.  Its  home  may  be 
quite  as  much  with  the  intellectual  babes  whom 
the  wise  and  prudent  of  John  Robinson’s  day 
nicknamed  Symon  the  Sadler,  Tomkin  the  Taylor, 
Billy  the  Bellows-mender,  as  with  the  wise  and 
prudent  themselves.  It  secures  continuity  of  faith 
by  creating  the  experience  out  of  which  faith 
grows  ;  and  by  nourishing  the  experience  enlarges 
the  compass  of  faith.  Creeds,  therefore,  are  only 
good,  at  the  best,  as  records  of  what  has  been 
attained ;  they  are  not  the  measure  of  attain¬ 
ment.  No  form  of  sound  words  can  fully  express 
the  spiritual  facts  once  for  all  delivered  to  faith  ; 
and  no  Church  that  believes  in  the  living  Spirit 
will  either  deny  the  facts,  or  deny  that  their 
significance  is  inexhaustible.  This  is  a  truth 
1  W.  N.  Clarke,  An  Outline,  of  Theology ,  p.  385. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  119 


which  the  Quakers  reasserted  when  it  was  deeply- 
overlaid  by  Protestant  traditionalism ;  and  this  I 
take  to  be  also  the  true  Congregational  position — 
a  fact  confirmed  by  the  long  story  of  the  Congrega¬ 
tional  Churches  which,  speaking  generally,  have  been 
distinguished  by  the  twofold  feature  of  loyalty 
both  to  Catholic  Evangelic  faith,  and  to  new  light. 

( e )  All  their  gravest  failures  are  traceable  to  the 
same  cause,  viz.  a  practical  denial  of  Christ’s  presence 
in  the  midst.  Where  that  is  ignored,  the  contrast 
between  the  actual  and  the  ideal  may  become 
ghastly.  “It  is  corruption  of  the  best  that  is  the 
worst.”  There  is  nothing  more  offensive  to 
honest  men  than  a  combination  of  lofty  pro¬ 
fessions  with  low  conduct.  And  a  Congrega¬ 
tional  Church  which,  by  its  definition,  is  the 
creation  and  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  quickly 
degenerates  into  an  object  of  deserved  contempt  if 
another  spirit  takes  possession.  It  has  a  name  to 
live  and  is  dead,  or  worse.  Some  of  us  recall  Mark 
Rutherford’s  description,  in  his  Autobiography,  of 
the  Congregational  church  of  which  for  a  time  he 
was  pastor ;  and  we  are  aware  that  it  was  not  an 
uncommon  instance  at  the  period  referred  to.  Its 
characteristic  was  pretence — pretence  of  faith,  pre¬ 
tence  of  worship,  pretence  of  goodness,  pretence 
of  zeal.  This  was  a  Church  which  came  after  the 
Evangelical  revival,  and  was  one  of  those  in  which 
the  glowing  fire  of  that  great  movement  had  burnt 
itself  out.  But  the  point  to  be  noted  is  this  :  that 


120  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


even  dead  Congregational  Churches  are  still  haunted 
by  the  ghost  of  their  essential  idea,  Christ  in  the 
midst.  So  it  was  that  when  Christ  came  back 
in  the  power  of  His  spirit  through  the  preaching 
of  Whitefield  and  Wesley  the  Independent  Churches 
were  among  the  first  to  recognise  the  fact  and  give 
Him  welcome.  Then,  all  over  the  land  they  awoke 
as  from  a  deep  sleep.  Chapels  were  filled  which 
had  been  almost  deserted.  New  chapels  were 
built ;  the  first  Sunday  Schools  sprang  up  among 
them.  Church  members  met  on  the  old  basis  of 
a  common  life  in  Christ,  and  realised  afresh  the  old 
fellowship.  A  new  spirit  of  concern  for  the  con¬ 
version  of  the  unbelieving  in  their  own  neighbour¬ 
hood,  which  ere  long  led  to  the  formation  of  Home 
Missionary  Societies  and  County  Unions,  developed 
yet  further  into  a  concern  for  winning  the  heathen 
world  for  Christ.  During  the  greater  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  the  missionary  impulse  was 
hardly  felt,  either  among  Congregationalists  or 
among  English  Christians  generally.  And  there 
could  be  no  surer  sign  than  this  that  the  true  life  of 
a  Congregational  Church  had  ebbed  away.  For 
where  Christ  is  realised  in  the  midst  His  voice  must 
be  repeating  the  charge,  “Go  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  make  disciples  of  every  creature.”  Once  a 
Saviour  He  is  ever  a  Saviour,  and  His  passion  for 
souls  cannot  but  burn  in  all  with  whom  He  dwells. 
In  the  seventeenth  century,  for  example,  John  Eliot, 
the  Congregational  pastor  of  Rothbury,  New  Eng- 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  121 


land,  heard  His  voice  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  heard  it 
in  the  Church  at  Antioch,  and  through  years  of  de¬ 
voted  work  for  the  Indians  obeyed  it  as  they  did.  If 
at  first  he  was  almost  alone  in  his  task  it  was  because 
in  New  England,  as  in  the  Homeland,  the  Churches 
were  too  much  absorbed  by  other  interests.  Yet  it 
was  Cromwell,  the  Independent,  who,  prompted 
by  sympathy  with  so  noble  a  pioneer,  did  most 
to  further  and  encourage  the  missionary  enterprise 
of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
New  England  ;  and  Independent  ministers  were  his 
warmest  supporters.  In  like  manner,  when  their  life 
in  Christ  returned  in  flood  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
one  of  its  sure  results  was  to  make  the  Congrega¬ 
tional  Churches — both  Baptist  and  Psedo-Baptist — 
fervently  missionary.  In  1792  the  “  Particular 
Baptist  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel  among 
the  Heathen  ”  was  founded  at  Kettering  ;  while 
in  1796  the  London  Missionary  Society  began  its 
great  career  on  interdenominational  lines  —  but 
initiated  by  Dr.  Bogue,  the  Congregational  minister 
at  Gosport,  and  soon  sustained  entirely  by  the 
Congregational  Churches.1 

1  “  Congregationalists  started  tlie  first  Foreign  Missionary  Society 
tliat  was  organised  and  incorporated  in  the  United  States.  .  .  . 
Other  Foreign  Missionary  Societies  have  grown  out  of  this  ;  and 
our  brethren  of  the  Baptist,  Presbyterian,  and  Dutch  Reformed 
Churches  on  our  side  of  the  water  have  occasion  to  rejoice  that 
God  put  into  the  hearts  of  three  young  men  at  Williams  College,  in 
Williamstown,  Massachusetts,  to  gather  at  a  haystack  and  devote 
themselves  to  missionary  work  in  foreign  lands.” — Dr.  Noble, 
Address  at  the  International  Congregational  Council  (Edinburgh, 
1908)  on  Historic  Congregationalism  in  the  United  States,  p.  282. 


122  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


6.  It  has  often  been  said  that  the  Congregational 
Church  may  cultivate  a  keen  sense  of  brotherhood 
within  itself,  but  tends  to  isolation  even  from  other 
Churches  of  its  own  order ;  and  still  more  from  the 
world  at  large.  Many  cases  can  be  quoted  in 
specious  support  of  such  a  statement.  But  it  is 
not  really  true.  It  will  be  found  on  inquiry  that 
the  isolation  sprang  from  general  causes  or  special 
circumstances.  Thus,  during  the  dreary  period  of 
repression  which  followed  the  Restoration,  the 
scattered  groups  of  Congregationalists  could  not  do 
otherwise  than  struggle  each  for  its  own  existence. 
If  they  were  little  gardens  walled  around,  the  walls 
were  not  of  their  own  building.  The  law  gave  them 
no  option.  It  cut  them  off  from  every  outlet  to  a 
larger  social  life,  and  threw  them  back  upon  them¬ 
selves.  Moreover,  this  centripetal  tendency  was 
not  confined  to  Congregationalists.  All  through 
the  eighteenth  century  and  through  some  decades 
of  the  nineteenth,  the  regnant  habits  of  thought  were 
individualistic  and  affected  all  the  Churches.  It 
was  natural  that  Congregational  churches  should 
be  affected  more  deeply  than  others  :  for  inde¬ 
pendency  was  one  of  their  notes,  and  the  temptation 
to  emphasise  it  unduly  always  lay  in  wait.  But  it 
is  true  to  say,  nevertheless,  that,  of  itself  and  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  strength  of  its  proper  life, 
the  inherent  tendency  of  a  Congregational  church 
is  toward  unselfish,  social  service.  One  proof  of 
this  is  the  outburst  of  missionary  zeal  to  which  I 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  123 


have  adverted,  and  its  continuously  steady  growth.1 
Another  is  the  eagerness  with  which  Congrega- 
tionalists  took  up  the  responsibilities  of  citizenship 
in  municipal  and  political  life  as  soon  as  the  State 
unbarred  their  way.  A  third  proof  may  be  seen  in 
the  calm  and  considered  efforts  of  Congregational 
statesmen,  supported  on  all  hands  by  the  rank  and 
file,  to  bring  about  a  voluntary  union  of  local 
churches  on  a  national — yea,  even  an  international 
scale  ;  and  also  to  provide  for  the  permanent 
release  of  their  ministers  from  the  anxieties  of 
poverty  by  the  aid  of  a  central  fund.2  But,  to  my 
mind,  the  best  proof  is  the  fact  that  they  are  keen 
to  co-operate  with  all  sections  of  the  Church  for 
the  universal  ends  of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  They 
do  not  propose,  or  expect,  that  other  sections  of 
the  Church  will  surrender  what  marks  each  off 
from  the  rest.  They  can  see,  in  the  light  of  experi¬ 
ence,  that  abolition  of  differences  is  not  possible, 
and  that  uniformity  is  not  desirable.  Each  section 
of  the  Church  has  had  its  own  work  to  do  and  has 
met  some  need  of  the  Christian  consciousness  more 

1  This  includes  those  “  Home  Missionary  ”  agencies  which  have  now 
become  so  characteristic  of  our  churches — see,  for  example,  what  is 
said  by  Dr.  Noble  (ibid.  p.  282)  about  the  City  Missionary  Society 
of  Chicago ;  and  compare  what  is  said  about  the  work  of  the  “  Man¬ 
chester  and  District  Congregational  Board  ”  in  “  a  series  of  sketches  ” 
entitled  Cloud-Rifts  over  Cottonopolis  (1911). 

2  See  Dr.  Willaston  Walker’s  paper  on  “  The  Relation  of 
Congregationalism  to  National  and  (Ecumenical  Minds  ”  (Report 
of  1908  International  Congregational  Council,  pp.  293  ff.)  for  a 
powerful  statement  of,  and  appeal  to,  the  “  universal  note”  in 
Congregationalism. 


124  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


or  less  vital.  But  their  belief  that  questions  of 
polity  proper,  and  many  questions  of  doctrine,  are 
of  quite  secondary  importance,  leaves  them  free 
to  work  untrammelled  with  Christians  of  every  name 
who  will  accept  them  as  allies  in  the  fight  against 
sin ;  and,  of  late  years,  the  longing  to  use  their 
freedom  in  this  respect  has  become  a  widespread 
passion.  I  venture  to  say  that  there  is  no  part  of 
the  Church — Evangelical  or  Catholic — with  which 
Congregationalists  would  decline  to  stand  shoulder 
to  shoulder  in  any  endeavour  to  advance  the  know¬ 
ledge  and  power  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

Such  an  attitude  is  not  one  of  compromise.  It 
is  an  attitude  of  consistency.  It  issues  from  the 
logic  of  their  idea  of  the  Church.  And  they  are  no 
less  consistent  when  they  deeply  deplore  the  non 
possumus  attitude  which  exclaims — the  possession 
of  a  common  Christian  life  and  ideals  is  not 
enough ;  we  cannot  unite  on  these  alone  ;  specific 
differences  forbid  ;  you  must  accept  this  or  that 
as  a  preliminary.  They  think  such  an  attitude  is 
schismatic.  For  it  contradicts  the  unity  of  the  spirit. 
It  renders  division  a  necessity  and  consecrates  it  as 
a  duty. 

7.  Congregationalists  have  given  much  and  re¬ 
ceived  much  in  the  course  of  the  years.  As  I  said 
at  the  outset,  their  distinctive  vocation  has  been 
to  rehabilitate  the  true  idea  of  the  Church ;  and  it 
is  not  an  exaggeration  to  affirm  that  their  idea  of 
the  Church  is  now  well-nigh  undisputed.  To  quote 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  125 


Dr.  Mackennal  :  “  The  Congregational  doctrine 

of  Church  membership — that  it  implies  personal 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  purity  of  life,  a 
general  harmony  of  religious  sentiment  between  each 
member  and  the  Church  as  a  whole — has  leavened 
the  nation.”  1 

If  a  tree  is  known  by  its  own  fruit,  by  this  test 
Congregationalism  can  bear  to  be  judged. 

It  has  shown  that  the  Christian  consciousness 
dwelling  in  a  Christian  people  can  preserve 
continuity  of  faith  and  life  amid  the  most  varied 
changes  of  environment,  and  has  no  need  to  depend 
for  guidance  upon  Prince  or  Priesthood. 

It  has  shown  how  insistence  upon  Christian  life  as 
the  main  thing  in  a  Church  can  melt  the  hardness 
of  dogma  and  transmute  its  dead  letter  into  a  living 
spirit  of  personal  and  domestic  virtue — as  might  be 
illustrated  by  many  a  beautiful  instance  drawn  from 
the  quiet  annals  of  many  an  unregarded  Congre¬ 
gational  c  Bethel.’ 

It  has  shown  that  the  sense  of  personal  responsi¬ 
bility  in  religion  inspires  a  sense  of  responsibility 
generally,  and  is  creative  of  strong  men — men  of 
a  strong  and  aspiring  type. 

It  has  shown,  chiefly  by  the  great  example  of  the 
American  Commonwealth,  that  a  Church  of  the 
spiritually  free  will  establish  a  State  of  the  politically 

1  Evolution  of  Congregationalism,  p.  230  ;  cf.  Bampton  Lecture 
for  1909,  The  Church  and  the  World,  by  Walter  Hobhouse,  pp.  25  ft., 
characteristics  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testament;  also  pp.  273, 
277,  279,  282,  302,  310, 


126  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


free,  if  it  gets  the  chance  ; 1  and  that  those  who 
habitually  exercise  liberty  of  conscience  them¬ 
selves  will,  sooner  or  later,  grant  it  unreservedly  as 
the  right  of  every  man. 

It  has,  in  these  and  other  ways,  played  its  ap¬ 
pointed  part  in  the  unfolding  of  the  manifold  grace 
of  God.  The  British  Isles  and  America — may  we  not 
add  the  whole  English-speaking  world? — would  have 
been  different  and  the  worse  but  for  its  influence. 
Its  witness  for  simplicity  and  purity  and  reality  in 
religion  has  not  been  in  vain.  It  has  helped  to 
bring  Christ  home  to  men  as  their  Lord  in  the  so- 
called  secular  no  less  than  in  the  sacred  spheres  of 
life.  It  has  been,  in  fact,  at  the  heart  of  that  English 
and  American  Puritanism  which,  with  all  its  defects, 

1  An  eminent  Swiss  jurist,  M.  Borgeaud,  traces  the  history  of 
modern  Democracy  to  the  compact  signed  in  the  cabin  of  the 
Mayflower ;  cp.  the  address  on  “  Congregationalism  in  New  England 
and  the  United  States  of  America,”  by  F.  M.  Fullerton,  in  Report 
of  International  Congregational  Council  (1891),  p.  129.  In  this 
address  it  is  shown  how  Congregationalism  in  America  was  also 
the  “  fount  of  education”  (p.  130), — a  fact  illustrated  by  Dr.  Noble 
in  the  address  already  quoted  (pp.  278,  279).  In  the  “  Deforming 
Synod  ”  of  1679,  held  at  Boston,  one  of  the  answers  (No.  xi.)  to  the 
second  question  (What  is  to  be  done  that  so  these  evils  be  reformed  ?) 
is  “  that  effectual  care  should  be  taken,  respecting  schools  of 
Learning.  The  interests  of  Religion  and  good  Literature  have  been 
wont  to  rise  and  fall  together.  .  .  .  Ecclesiastical  Story  informs  that 
great  care  was  taken  by  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate  Suc¬ 
cessors,  for  the  setting  of  schools  in  all  places  where  the  Gospel 
had  been  preached.  .  .  .  When  New  England  was  poor,  and  we 
were  but  few  in  number  comparatively,  there  was  a  spirit  to 
encourage  ELearning,  and  the  Colledge  (Harvard)  was  full  of 
students  whom  God  hath  made  blessings,  not  only  in  this,  but 
in  other  lands  ...”  ( Creeds  and  Platforms  of  Congregationalism , 
p.  437). 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  127 


has  done  so  much  to  put  a  moral  conscience  even 
into  art  and  commerce  and  politics. 

On  the  other  hand,  Congregationalists  have 
gained  much  as  well  as  given.  Not  least  have  they 
gained  from  adversity.  If  their  way  had  been 
easier  they  would  not  have  learnt  so  well  the  truth 
and  power  of  their  essential  principle.  Persecu¬ 
tion  has  been,  and  might  be  again,  a  blessing  to  them. 
The  light  upon  their  path  has  never  been  more  clear 
or  more  evidently  Divine  than  when  the  surround¬ 
ing  darkness  was  most  dense. 

But  they  have  gained  also  from  that  openness  of 
mind  which  comes  through  prosperity  or  at  least 
through  kindlier  circumstances.  They  have  learnt 
how  to  learn  from  other  Churches.  Their  in¬ 
creased  regard  for  what  is  historically  venerable 
and  beautiful  in  the  externals  of  religion  they 
owe  largely  to  the  Established  Church.  Presby¬ 
terianism  has  impressed  upon  them  the  value  of 
order  and  intellectual  thoroughness  and  co-ordinated 
action.  Methodism  more  than  once  has  restored 
their  soul,  kindled  afresh  their  sense  of  a  living 
spirit,  brought  them  back  to  faith  in  the  inner 
witness  of  experience.  From  all  Churches  more  or 
less,  and  from  all  quarters,  their  treasure  of  know¬ 
ledge  and  life  has  been  enriched.  But  their  pearl 
of  great  price,  apart  from  which  they  are  nothing, 
and  for  the  sake  of  which  they  should  be  prepared 
to  sell  everything,  is  still  the  same,  viz.  their  idea 
of  the  Church  as  consisting  of  really  Christian 


128  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


people,  a  communion  of  saints,  conscious  of  Christ 
in  the  midst,  and  looking  away  to  Him  with  un¬ 
veiled  face  always  and  for  all  things. 

The  characteristic  features  of  moderate  seventeenth -century 
Congregationalism  meet,  and  are  well  expressed,  in  the  tract 
entitled  “  An  Apologetical  Narration,  Humbly  submitted  to 
the  Honourable  Houses  of  Parliament — by  (the  five  4  Dissenting 
Brethren  ’  of  the  Westminster  Assembly)  Thomas  Goodwin, 
Philip  Nye,  Sidrach  Simpson,  Jeremiah  Burroughes,  William 
Bridge— 1643.” 

(1)  Its  breadth. — “We  have  this  sincere  profession  to  make 
before  God  and  all  the  world,”  that  all  our  “  conscience  of  the 
defilements  we  conceived  to  cleave  to  the  true  worship  of  God 
in  ”  the  English  Churches,  “or  of  the  unwarranted  power  in 
church -governors  exercised  therein  did  never  work  in  any  of 
us  any  other  thought,  much  less  opinion,  but  that  multitudes  of 
the  assemblies  and  parochial  congregations  thereof  were  the 
true  Churches  and  Body  of  Christ ;  and  the  ministry  thereof  a 
true  ministry,  much  less  did  it  ever  enter  into  our  hearts  to 
judge  them  Anti-Christian.”  “We  always  have  professed  .  .  . 
and  when  ourselves  had  least,  yea,  no  hopes  of  even  so  much  as 
visiting  our  own  land  in  peace  and  safety  to  our  persons,  that  we 
both  did  and  would  hold  a  communion  with  them  as  the  Churches 
of  God.” 

(2)  Its  Biblicism. — Their  first  and  supreme  rule  was  “  the 
fullness  of  the  Scriptures,”  i.e.  that  “  there  is  therein  a  complete 
sufficiency,  as  to  make  the  man  of  God  perfect,  so  also  to  make 
the  Churches  of  God  perfect  .  .  .  not  daring  to  make  out  what 
was  defective  in  our  light,  ,in  matters  Divine,  with  human 
prudence — the  fatal  error  to  Reformation — lest  by  sewing  any 
piece  of  the  4  old  garment  ’  unto  the  4  new  ’  we  should  make  the 
rent  worse.” 

(3)  Its  open-mindedness. — 44  We  had  too  great  an  instance  of 
our  own  frailty  in  the  former  way  of  our  conformity  ;  and,  there¬ 
fore,  in  a  jealousie  of  ourselves  we  kept  this  reserve  ...  to 
alter  and  retract  (though  not  lightly)  whatever  should  be  dis¬ 
covered  to  be  taken  up  out  of  a  misunderstanding  of  this  4  rule  5 : 
which  principle  we  wish  were — next  to  that  most  supreme. 


THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCHES  129 


viz.  to  be  in  all  things  guided  by  the  perfect  will  of  God — enacted 
as  the  most  sacred  law  of  all  other,  in  the  midst  of  all  other  laws 
and  canons  ecclesiastical  in  Christian  states  and  churches 
throughout  the  world.” 

(4)  Its  conduct  of  'public  worship.  —  An  ordinary  service 
consisted  of  “  public  and  solemn  prayers  for  kings  and  all  in 
authority,  etc. ;  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  ;  exposition  of  them,  as  occasion  was,  and  con¬ 
stant  preaching  of  the  Word ;  the  administration  of  the  two 
Sacraments — baptism  of  infants  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  ;  singing 
of  psalms  ;  collections  for  the  poor,  etc.,  every  Lord’s  Day.” 

(5)  Its  officers,  viz.  “  pastors,  teachers,  ruling  elders — with  us 
not  lay,  but  ecclesiastic  persons  separated  to  that  service — and 
deacons”;  in  fact,  “no  other  but  the  very  same  which  the 
Reformed  Churches  judge  necessary  and  sufficient,  and  as  in¬ 
stituted  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  for  the  perpetual  government 
of  His  Church.” 

(6)  Its  rule  of  discipline. — This,  too,  “  for  the  matter  ”  is  not 
“  any  other  but  what  all  acknowledge,  viz.  admonition  and  ex- 
communication  upon  obstinacy  and  impenitency.”  But,  for 
the  manner,  it  is  to  be  “  exercised  ”  in  the  “  several  congrega¬ 
tions  by  their  own  elders.”  “  Yet  not  claiming  to  ourselves  an 
‘  independent  power  ’  in  every  congregation  to  give  account, 
or  be  subject,  to  none  others  ;  but  only  a  full  and  entire  power, 
complete  within  ourselves,  until  we  shall  be  challenged  to  err 
grossly.” 

(7)  Its  qualified  dependence  on  (a)  “  Other  neighbour  churches .” 
— In  all  cases  of  grave  offence  or  difference — “by  obligation 
of  the  common  law  of  ‘  communion  of  Churches  ’  and  for  the 
vindication  of  the  glory  of  Christ,  which  in  common  they  hold 
forth — the  Church  or  Churches  challenged  to  offend,  or  differ, 
are  to  submit  themselves  to  ”  open  trial  and  examination  by 
neighbouring  Churches  of  the  same  order ;  and,  refusing  so  to 
submit  or  to  repent,  may  be  deprived  by  the  latter  of  “  all 
Christian  communion  with  them.”  (b)  The  magistrate — to 
whom  is  ascribed  a  power  of  general  oversight,  and,  in  such  cases 
as  those  just  mentioned,  an  “  interposing  power  ”  if  it  “  do  but 
assist  and  back  the  sentence  of  other  Churches  denouncing  this 
non-communion  against  Churches  miscarrying.”  And  so, 
“  that  a  single  and  particular  society  of  men,  professing  the  name 

9 


130  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  Christ,  and  pretending  to  be  endowed  with  a  power  from  Christ 
to  judge  them  that  are  of  the  same  body  and  society  within 
themselves,  should  further  arrogate  unto  themselves  an  exemp¬ 
tion  from  giving  account  to,  or  being  censurable  by  any  other, 
either  Christian  magistrates  above  them,  or  neighbour  Churches 
about  them  ”  is  a  “  maxim  ”  to  be  “  abhorred.”  Hence  the 
“  apologists  ”  resented  “  that  proud  and  insolent  title  of  In¬ 
dependency  ”  which  had  been  “  affixed  ”  to  them  as  well  as 
“  the  odious  name  of  Brownism.”  “  We  believe,”  say  they, 
“  the  truth  to  lie  and  consist  in  a  middle  way  betwixt  that 
which  is  falsely  charged  on  us,  ‘  Brownism,’  and  that  which 
is  the  contention  of  these  times,  the  ‘  authoritative  Presbyterial 
government  ’  in  all  the  subordinations  and  proceedings  of  it.” 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 

BY 

NEWTON  H.  MARSHALL 


131 


I.  Origins. 

The  mistaken  ideal  of  Homogeneous  Uniformity  in  the 
Church.  A  Living  Church  tends  to  Self-Differentia¬ 
tion.  The  awakening  produced  in  England  by  the 
Translation  of  the  Bible.  Resultant  movements  in 
the  Church:  1.  The  Reformation;  2.  Puritanism; 
3.  Separatism ;  4.  Presbyterianism ;  5.  Independency ; 
6.  the  Baptist  Movement.  The  Baptist  claim  to 
Churchmanship . 

II.  The  Distinctive  Feature  of  the  Baptist  Movement: 
the  Centrality  of  Conversion. 

Baptists  and  Anabaptists  distinguished.  John  Smyth. 
The  first  English  Baptist  Church.  General  and  parti¬ 
cular  Baptists.  The  centrality  of  conversion  in  both 
groups.  Baptists  and  preaching. 

III.  Two  Chief  Contributions  made  by  Baptists  to  the 

Life  of  the  Church. 

1.  The  doctrines  of  religious  liberty  first  enunciated  by 

Baptists.  Leonard  Busher’s  Plea.  John  Smyth’s  Long 
Confession.  Peter  Chamberlen.  Results  of  this  doc¬ 
trine  :  love  for  civil  liberty  increased ;  home  legislation, 
American  constitution,  and  French  Revolution  affected. 
Baptists  under  persecution. 

2.  The  Foreign  Missionary  enterprise.  Baptists  in  the 

eighteenth  century.  The  Wesleyan  Revival.  William 
Carey.  The  Baptist  part  in  this  movement  not  acci¬ 
dental,  but  involved  in  their  principle  of  the  centrality 
of  conversion.  Far-reaching  effect  of  the  movement. 

IV.  Modern  Modifications  of  the  Baptist  Movement. 

1.  Fusion  of  particular  and  general  Baptist  bodies;  2. 
Open  fellowship ;  3.  Consolidation  of  organisation  and 
world-wide  extension :  the  Baptist  World  Alliance. 
The  doctrine  of  the  centrality  of  conversion  enhanced 
by  all  these. 

V.  The  Place  of  the  Baptists  in  the  Catholic  Church. 


132 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


When  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  passed  in  1559, 
legislative  expression  was  given  to  an  ideal  which 
has  always  greatly  attracted  Churchmen — the 
ideal  of  the  homogeneous  Church  ;  that  is,  the 
ideal  of  the  Church,  with  one  order  of  ritual,  one 
form  of  government,  one  hierarchic  order,  and 
one  type  of  doctrine.  This  ideal  has  very  generally 
been  identified  with  the  ideal  of  Christian  Unity. 
It  has  been  supposed  that  apart  from  homogeneity 
there  could  be  no  real  unity  in  the  Church.  Many 
Churchmen  then  rejoiced  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
because  they  saw  in  it  a  real  step  towards  Christian 
unity,  and  many  Churchmen  to-day,  although  they 
have  quite  given  up  any  expectation  of  achieving 
Christian  unity  by  legislation,  conceive  Christian 
unity  as  coming  through  the  voluntary  adoption  of 
some  such  homogeneity  as  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
sought  to  enforce. 

In  recent  years,  however,  many  things  have 
co-operated  to  teach  us  to  give  to  the  homogeneous 
a  less  exalted  place.  Biology,  chemistry,  physics, 
psychology,  political  science — indeed,  all  the  sciences 
— associate  the  homogeneous  with  the  primitive 

133 


134  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


and  immature,  or  even  with  the  degenerate,  and 
insist  that  healthy,  adult,  and  highly  devel¬ 
oped  organisms  tend  always  more  and  more  towards 
variety  and  differentiation.  Growth  is  from  the 
homogeneous  towards  the  complex.  At  the  same 
time  we  have  learnt  to  give  a  new  connotation  to 
our  notion  of  unity.  Unity  we  see  to  be  in  no 
way  opposed  to  differentiation.  On  the  contrary, 
the  truest  and  most  permanent  unity  is  to  be  found 
in  the  complex  rather  than  in  the  simple.  The 
highest  unity  we  know  is  the  unity  of  personality 
in  will — and  that  is  also  the  highest  and  subtlest 
complex. 

These  considerations  are  not  without  bearing 
upon  the  history  of  the  Church  in  England.  In 
pre-Reformation  times  the  Church  in  England  may 
fairly  be  styled  homogeneous.  The  upgrowth  of 
Lollardry,  that  bid  fair  at  one  time  to  give  rise  to 
a  notable  development,  was  unable  to  withstand 
the  terrible  persecutions  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
followed,  as  they  were,  by  the  Wars  of  the  Roses, 
and  in  the  early  years  of  Henry  viii.’s  reign  there 
obtained  in  the  main  just  that  ecclesiastical  homo¬ 
geneity  which  Elizabeth  afterwards  sought  to 
restore  in  vain.  With  the  Reformation,  however, 
new  life  entered  the  Church  in  England,  and  this 
life,  full  and  mighty,  resulted  in  rapid  and  startling 
changes.  I  shall  briefly  enumerate  those  changes 
directly.  For  the  moment  may  I  invite  you  to 
notice  that  they  were  changes  inside  the  Church. 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


135 


They  were  developments  of  the  Church  itself  in 
England. 

The  chief  if  not  the  sole  occasion  of  this  great 
awakening  of  life  within  the  Church  was  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  English  tongue. 
Prior  to  that  translation,  not  only  the  laity,  but 
also  the  bulk  of  the  clergy,  were  completely  ignorant 
of  the  Bible,  unless  anywhere  a  tradition  of  Lollardry 
lingered  in  secret.  But  after  Tyndale,  Coverdale, 
and  Henry  viii.’s  bishops  had  done  their  work,  the 
Bible  became  the  venerated  possession  of  the  whole 
nation.  The  result  of  this  new  discovery  of  the 
Bible  was  the  self-criticism  of  the  Church  in  the 
light  of  the  apostolic  teaching  and  the  example  of 
Jesus.  It  was  obvious  to  every  sincere  thinking 
reader  of  the  Bible  that  the  Church  was  very  differ¬ 
ent  from  what  it  had  been  in  the  days  of  Paul. 
Canterbury  and  York  were  strangely  diverse  from 
Antioch  and  Corinth. 

This  self-criticism  did  not  proceed  very  swiftly, 
nor  could  it  possibly  be  carried  into  institutional 
change  by  any  one  mind  or  group  of  men.  It  was 
progressive,  carried  on  by  a  series  of  stages,  each 
onward  movement  being  initiated  by  a  smaller 
group  of  Churchmen,  the  more  cautious,  or  tenacious 
of  the  past,  being  left  behind,  as  the  process  was 
carried,  stage  by  stage,  toward  completion. 

The  first  of  this  series  of  movements  was  a  great 
one,  in  which  a  large  body,  though  perhaps  a 
minority,  of  Churchmen  took  part.  It  consisted 


136  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


in  that  criticism  and  revision  of  doctrine  (the 
political  separation  from  the  Papacy  having  now 
been  effected)  which  we  call  the  Reformation. 
The  second  movement  arose  amongst  the  Reformers 
themselves,  and  consisted  in  a  criticism  of  the 
ritual  of  the  Church  and  a  desire  to  revise  that. 
This  was  the  Puritan  movement,  strictly  so-called. 
The  third  movement,  originating  within  the  Puritan 
body  (if  one  may  use  such  a  phrase  of  a  widely 
scattered  group  of  people  without  strict  organisa¬ 
tion)  criticised  the  inclusive  nature  of  the  Church. 
It  saw  that  in  the  Church  the  godly  and  ungodly 
worshipped  and  communicated  on  equal  terms. 
There  was  no  distinction  between  the  world  and 
the  Church  any  more.  This  distinction  this  section 
of  the  Puritans  wished  to  set  up  again,  and  their 
movement  is  called  the  Separatist  movement.  As 
such,  however,  the  Separatists  did  not  criticise  the 
government  of  the  Church.  That  was  left  to  the 
Presbyterians,  who,  under  Cartwright,  sought  to 
destroy  that  episcopacy  which  they  failed  to  find  in 
the  New  Testament,  by  the  establishment  within  the 
Church  of  England  itself  of  a  system  of  Church 
government,  in  which  presbytery  and  synod  would 
take  the  place  of  bishops.  This  system  they 
actually  succeeded  to  some  extent  in  setting  up, 
especially  in  East  Anglia,  and,  but  for  Whitgift 
and  his  ecclesiastical  commission,  they  might  have 
completely  succeeded  in  their  object. 

So  far  the  self-criticism  of  the  Church  had  pro- 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


137 


ceeded  by  these  stages — Reformation  of  doctrine, 
Puritanism  in  ritual,  Separate  congregations,  and 
Presbytery  in  place  of  Prelacy.  The  next  stage 
was  more  radical.  It  consisted  in  a  criticism  of 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Church,  and  found 
its  first  practical  expression  in  the  foundation  of 
the  first  Independent  or  Congregational  Church 
on  English  soil  by  Robert  Browne.  The  Congrega¬ 
tional  movement  summed  up  in  itself  all  the  move¬ 
ments  that  had  gone  before.  Its  doctrine  was 
the  reformed,  in  ritual  it  was  Puritan,  it  fixed  once 
and  for  all  in  a  visible  institution  the  Separatist 
ideal,  and  it  denied  the  episcopacy  with  the  Presby¬ 
terians.  And  all  this  it  gathered  up  in  the  one 
bold  doctrine  of  equating  the  visible  Church  with 
any  separate  company  of  believers,  which  it  regarded 
as  by  nature  and  right  self-governing  under  the 
authority  of  Christ. 

Still,  however,  this  movement  within  the  Church, 
this  self-differentiation  of  the  Church,  rendered 
quick  and  fruitful  by  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God, 
this  keen  and  ruthless  process  of  self-criticism  and 
revision,  was  not  at  an  end.  The  constitution  of 
the  Church  in  conformity  with  its  fundamental 
idea  having  come  under  scrutiny  and  reformation, 
a  new  element  was  brought  into  the  focus  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  and  conscience,  viz.  the 
mode  of  entry  into  the  Church.  This  mode  so 
far  had  been  accepted  from  tradition  without  criti¬ 
cism.  The  Reformers  took  it  over  from  Rome,  the 


138  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Puritans  accepted  it  with  Canterbury,  the  Separa¬ 
tists  had  no  quarrel  with  it,  the  Presbyterians 
believed  in  it,  nor  did  the  Independents  feel  it  to  be 
at  all  incongruous  with  their  position.  It  was  the 
mode  of  baptism.  Baptism  was  the  way  into  the 
Church.  True,  all  these  Churchmen  belonged  to 
one  or  other  of  two  parties  in  respect  of  baptism. 
The  Reformers,  the  Puritans,  and  the  Presby¬ 
terians  agreed  that  all  baptized  persons  were,  unless 
excommunicate,  part  of  the  Church,  whereas  the 
Separatists  and  Independents  believed  that  the 
Church  was  composed  of  baptized  persons  who 
voluntarily  united  in  the  Church,  desiring  to 
separate  themselves  from  the  world.  The  Separa¬ 
tists  and  Independents,  therefore,  had  indirectly 
and  unwittingly,  so  to  speak,  criticised  baptism  as 
the  way  into  the  Church.  This  indirect  and  con¬ 
fused  criticism  received  final  and  drastic  expression 
in  the  next  movement  of  our  series.  This  was  the 
Baptist  movement  which,  adopting  the  Congrega¬ 
tional  position  with  all  that  this  brought  with  it  as 
the  spoils  of  the  previous  stages  of  development 
due  to  Bible  study  within  the  Church,  made  baptism 
the  real  entry  to  the  Church  of  a  voluntarily  separ¬ 
ated  congregation,  by  raising  the  age  of  baptism 
to  some  point  of  time  subsequent  to  the  subject’s 
personal  experience  of  a  saving  belief. 

I  have  felt  it  necessary  summarily  to  review 
the  whole  movement  since  the  Reformation  inside 
the  Church,  in  order  to  show  the  place  of  the  Bap- 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


139 


tist  churches  in  that  whole  movement,  and  in  order 
to  indicate  the  point  of  view  which  Baptists  adopt 
in  claiming  to  have  a  real  place  by  nature  and  right 
within  the  one  Church  of  Christ  in  England.  Bap¬ 
tists  claim  to  be  Churchmen  with  the  rest. 

The  actual  historic  circumstances  under  which 
the  first  Baptist  churches  arose  need  now  to  be 
briefly  sketched,  especially  as  some  little  confusion 
exists  under  this  head. 

For  a  long  time  the  English  Baptists  were  known 
as  Anabaptists.  It  was  natural  that  this  name 
should  be  given  to  them,  and  yet  it  is  quite  mis¬ 
leading  to  suppose  that  it  is  justly  theirs.  This 
they  well  knew,  for  they  continually  protested 
against  its  application  to  themselves.  For  the 
Baptists  and  Anabaptists  are  in  reality  distinct 
from  one  another  both  in  origin  and  doctrine.  That 
they  are  distinct  in  origin  we  see  at  once  when  we 
observe  that  neither  of  the  two  Baptist  bodies 
which  for  nearly  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  existed 
side  by  side  in  this  country,  is  to  be  traced  back  to 
any  Anabaptist  bodies.  There  were  Anabaptist 
groups,  mostly  composed  of  foreign  refugees,  in 
England  from  early  in  the  sixteenth  century,  but 
none  of  these  is  parent  of  any  one  of  those  early 
Baptist  churches  to  which  our  present  Baptist 
denomination  traces  its  origin.  These  Anabaptist 
communities  had  no  direct  or  great  effect  upon 
English  Church  life.  The  thin  Anabaptist  stream 
passing  to  this  country  from  the  Continent,  died 


140  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


away  in  soil  alien  to  its  origin  and  to  its  real  and 
characteristic  ideals  and  function.  The  Baptist 
churches  sprang,  not  from  Anabaptist  communi¬ 
ties,  but  from  the  very  heart  of  that  living  Church 
movement  which  we  have  been  so  far  tracing. 
John  Smyth,  the  founder  of  the  first  General  Baptist 
Church,  entered  Cambridge  University  about  1586, 
proceeded  to  his  M.A.,  after  a  normal  course  at 
Christ’s  College,  in  1593,  and  was  ordained  in  1594 
by  Wickham,  Bishop  of  Lincoln.  In  1600  he  was 
appointed  lecturer  of  the  City  of  Lincoln,  but  was 
inhibited  by  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  in  1602  on 
grounds  of  which  we  have  no  definite  knowledge. 
Shortly  after  this  he  went  to  live  at  Gainsborough, 
where  the  Separatist  movement  was  strong.  Here 
Smyth  himself  became  a  Separatist,  and  by  and  by 
was  chosen  as  pastor  of  the  Independent  Church  in 

Gainsborough.  When  this  Church  was  driven  from 

* 

England  by  persecution,  John  Smyth  went  with 
the  rest — Helwys,  and  Morton,  and  Robinson  being 
of  the  company — to  Amsterdam,  where  what  is 
known  as  the  Ancient  Church  had  its  home.  We 
need  not  linger  over  the  difficulties,  disputes,  and 
differences  which  fermented  in  this  little  com¬ 
munity  of  exiles  and  pioneers.  We  know  that  in 
2608  Smyth  and  some  eighty  others  hived  off  from 
tfye  Ancient  Church,  and  that  in  1609  he  finally 
became  a  Baptist.  This  means  that  he  came  to  the 

I 

conclusion  that  no  baptism  was  valid  of  which  the 
subject  was  not  a  believer.  Smyth  was  not  an  im- 

I 

i 

\ 

t 

\ 

( 

\ 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


141 


mersionist.  All  that  he  contended  for  in  his  first 
Baptist  publication  was  that  “  infants  ought  not 
to  be  baptized,  because  (1)  there  is  neither  precept 
nor  example  in  the  New  Testament  of  any  infants 
that  were  baptized  by  John  or  Christ’s  disciples, 
and  (2)  Christ  commanded  to  make  disciples  by 
teaching  them  and  then  to  baptize  them.”  So  far 
was  Smyth  from  regarding  himself  as  an  Anabaptist 
or  even  a  Mennonite,  that  he,  because  he  could  find 
none  to  baptize  him,  though  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  Mennonites  of  standing,  baptized  himself 
and  then  his  companions.  So  we  see  the  whole 
process  of  the  criticism  and  reform  of  the  Church 
which  went  on  in  this  period  summed  up  in  the 
life  of  one  man,  who  passed  from  the  Reformed 
Church  to  the  Baptist  position  by  definite  stages. 
In  1611  or  1612  Thomas  Helwys,  with  Morton, 
Busher,  and  others,  left  Amsterdam  and  returned  to 
England  and  formed  the  first  General  Baptist 
Church  on  English  soil.  They  worshipped  together 
near  Newgate  Street,  London. 

Similarly  it  may  be  shown  that  the  Particular 
Baptists,  whose  origin  is  quite  distinct  from  that 
of  the  General  Baptists,  sprang,  not  from  the  Ana¬ 
baptists,  but  from  the  great  native  movement  within 
the  Church  in  England.  In  1616  there  was  in 
Southwark  a  church  founded  by  Separatists,  of 
which  Henry  Jacob  was  the  pastor.  It  was  to 
this  church  that  the  name  Independent  was  first 
given.  In  1633  a  number  of  members  who  held 


142  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


peculiar  views  on  baptism  were  dismissed  in  a 
perfectly  friendly  way  from  this  mother  church 
to  form  a  church  of  their  own,  and,  in  1638,  the 
church  thus  formed  rejected  infant  baptism  and 
became  the  First  Particular  or  Calvinistic  Baptist 
Church  in  England,  with  Spilsbury  probably  as  its 
pastor.  This  church  also  at  first  still  practised 
baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  and  not  by 
immersion. 

So  we  see  that  neither  of  the  Baptist  denomina¬ 
tions,  which  were  fused  in  1885  in  the  present 
Baptist  Union  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  is  by 
origin  Anabaptist.  Nor  were  these  bodies  Ana¬ 
baptist  in  doctrine.  There  were  three  distinctive 
marks  of  the  Anabaptist  movement.  First,  it 
had  an  extreme  social  doctrine,  which  rejected 
civil  authority  and  all  traditional  social  order. 
It  was  from  its  inception  involved  in  the  struggles 
of  the  peasants  of  Germany  and  Switzerland  against 
their  feudal  lords.  Anabaptism  was  the  religious 
analogue  of  the  “  Revolt  of  the  Common  Man.” 
Next,  the  Anabaptist  theology  was  also  extreme. 
It  did  not  flow  in  the  channels  of  the  great  streams 
of  reformation,  either  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic, 
but  was  marked  by  a  great  variety  of  theological 
peculiarities,  often  as  mutually  contradictory  as 
they  were  unorthodox.  One  doctrine,  however, 
seems  to  have  been  peculiar  to  the  Anabaptists 
wherever  they  were  found — it  was  the  denial  that 
Christ  took  flesh  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Joan  of 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


143 


Kent,  for  instance,  who  was  an  Anabaptist  and  not 
a  Baptist,  was  burnt  at  the  stake  because  of  this  very 
denial.  The  third  characteristic  of  the  Anabaptists 
had  to  do  with  ritual.  It  was  re-baptism,  or,  rather, 
the  doctrine  that  no  baptism  is  valid  which  is  not 
on  profession  of  faith.  Now  of  these  three  marks 
one  only  the  Baptists  share  with  the  Anabaptists, 
that  which  has  to  do  with  the  sacrament  of 
baptism.  And  even  in  this  particular  it  must  be 
noted  that  whereas  the  Anabaptists  generally 
practised  affusion  and  not  immersion,  from  the  year 
1642  the  Baptists  began  generally  to  adopt  immersion 
instead  of  affusion.  The  evolution  of  the  Baptist 
Churches  by  self-differentiation  of  the  Church  in 
England,  can  then  be  traced  without  any  dragging 
in  of  the  Anabaptist  movement.  The  two  move¬ 
ments  crossed  one  another  at  the  point  of  baptism, 
each  affirming  that  the  subject  of  the  rite  must  be  a 
believer.  But  they  had  different  origins  and  passed 
on  to  widely  different  destinies.  Anabaptism  was 
a  revolt.  The  Baptist  Church  was  the  culmination 
of  a  national  revival  of  religion. 

So  we  now  see  how  the  life  that  visited  the  Church 
in  England  as  the  New  Testament  was  studied, 
resulted  in  a  rapid  development  of  the  Church, 
with  differentiation.  In  every  case  the  new-formed 
bodies  made  some  real  and  distinctive  contribution 
to  Church  life  in  England.  We  have  now  to  ask 
what  contribution  the  Baptists  made.  We  shall 
see  that  the  Baptists  did  chiefly  one  thing,  a  thing 


144  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


widely  momentous,  incalculably  effective,  not  only 
in  the  development  of  the  Church  in  England,  but 
in  many  directions,  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical, 
at  home  and  abroad.  This  first  and  great  thing 
was  the  rescue  and  reassertion  of  the  doctrine  of 
conversion.  Out  of  this  sprang  great  movements, 
chief  of  which  were  (i.)  the  enunciation,  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  Church  in  England,  of 
the  full  doctrine  of  religious  liberty  ;  (ii.)  the  modern 
missionary  enterprise. 

The  centre  of  gravity  of  the  Baptist  conception 
of  the  Gospel  and  the  Church  was  not,  and  is  not, 
baptism,  but  conversion.  The  Baptist  doctrine 
has  always  been,  not  to  exalt  baptism,  but  to 
exalt  conversion  ;  not  to  put  baptism  in  the  first 
place,  but  to  put  it  in  the  second  place  ;  not  to 
emphasise  the  material  sign,  but  to  emphasise 
the  spiritual  meaning  ;  not  to  seek  safety  in  ritual, 
but  to  make  ritual  the  exultant  signal  of  safety. 
Baptism  without  conversion  is  for  the  Baptists 
nothing  and  no  baptism  :  conversion,  even  apart 
from  baptism  and  without  it,  is  the  purpose  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  commission  of  the  Church.  This 
is  so  quite  irrespective  of  the  particular  theologies 
which  Baptists  have  professed.  For  it  is  well  to 
observe  that  the  Baptist  Churches  have  always 
tolerated  within  their  own  limits  very  wide  differ¬ 
ences  of  doctrine.  The  first  Baptist  church  founded 
by  John  Smyth  was  Arminian  in  doctrine,  while 
the  church  over  which  Spilsbury  presided,  and 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


145 


from  which  the  greater  of  the  two  Baptist  denomina¬ 
tions  sprang,  was  Calvinistic.  We  will  look  at 
each  of  these  bodies  and  see  how  each  attached 
central  importance  to  the  doctrine  of  conversion. 

First  of  all  we  will  examine  the  place  given  by 
the  General  or  Arminian  Baptists  to  conversion.  In 
John  Smyth’s  Long  Confession  of  Faith,  which 
numbered  one  hundred  Articles,  and  was  published 
posthumously  in  1613,  we  read  : — 

“  That  original  sin  is  an  idle  term. 

44  That  infants  are  conceived  and  born  in  innocency 
without  sin,  and  that  so  dying  are  undoubtedly 
saved,  and  that  this  is  to  be  understood  of 
all  infants.  .  .  . 

“  That  .  .  .  God  doth  not  create  or  predestinate 
any  man  to  destruction. 

44  That  Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners.  .  .  . 

4 4  That  .  .  .  the  sacrifice  of  Christ’s  body  and 
blood  .  .  .  doth  not  reconcile  God  unto  us, 
which  did  never  hate  us,  nor  was  our  enemy, 
but  reconcileth  us  unto  God.  .  .  . 

44  That  Christ  was  delivered  to  death  for  our 
sins.  .  .  . 

44  That  the  efficacy  of  Christ’s  death  is  only  de¬ 
rived  to  them  which  do  mortify  their  sins. 

44  That  repentance  is  the  change  of  the  mind 
from  evil  to  that  which  is  good.  .  .  . 

44  That  the  outward  baptism  of  water  is  to  be 
administered  only  upon  such  penitent  and 
faithful  persons  as  are  aforesaid,  and  not 
upon  infants,  or  wicked  persons. 

44  That  in  baptism  to  the  penitent  person  and 
believer  there  is  presented  and  figured  .  .  . 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire. 

io 


146  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


“  That  the  outward  baptism  and  supper  do  not 
confer  or  convey  grace  and  regeneration.  .  .  . 

“  That  the  sacraments  have  the  same  use  that 
the  word  hath ;  that  they  are  a  visible 
word.  .  . 

A  second  illustration  I  will  take  from  one  of  the 
very  earliest  publications  of  the  General  Baptists, 
Leonard  Busher’s  tract  entitled  Religion's  Peace , 
or  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience,  published  in 
1614.  This  tract  is  addressed  to  King  James  I., 
and  among  its  opening  paragraphs  we  find  the  follow¬ 
ing  sentences  : — 

“  In  all  humility,  therefore,  I  give  you  to  under¬ 
stand,  that  no  prince  or  people  can  possibly  attain 
that  one  true  religion  of  the  Gospel  .  .  .  merely 
by  birth.  For  Christ  saith,  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  .  .  .  There¬ 
fore  Christ  commanded  this  word  to  be  preached 
to  all  nations,  that  thereby  they  may  attain  the 
new  birth.  .  .  .  Christ  will  have  his  ministers  to 
preach  and  teach  the  people  of  all  nations  .  .  . 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  and  to  baptize 
in  his  name  such  as  believe.” 

What  is  true  of  the  General  or  Arminian  Baptists 
is  true  also  of  the  Particular  or  Calvinistic  Baptists. 
The  real  point  at  issue  between  them  and  all  other 
Churchmen  in  England  was  not  the  mode  of  baptism, 
but  its  proper  subject,  i.e.  the  believer,  and  no  person 
incapable  of  belief  (as  is  an  infant).  The  key  to 
the  understanding  of  their  whole  position  and  his¬ 
tory  is  the  fact  that  they  saw  that  the  experience 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


147 


of  the  individual,  in  consciously  turning  from  sin 
and  accepting  Christ,  alone  gives  significance  to 
the  Gospel,  the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the 
Sacraments. 

One  of  the  earliest  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the 
Particular  Baptists  is  that  called  A  Confession 
of  Faith  of  those  Churches  which  are  commonly 
(i though  falsely)  called  Anabaptists .”  It  was  first 
published  in  1644,  and  was  signed  among  others 
by  Spilsbury,  Richardson,  and  Wm.  Kiffen.  The 
following  extracts  from  Articles  25  to  41  indicate 
the  respective  places  given  in  this  Confession  to 
conversion  and  baptism.  After  a  series  of  Articles 
displaying  a  theology  radically  different  from 
Smyth’s  Arminianism,  with  its  denial  of  original 
sin,  we  read  : — 

“The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the  conversion 
of  sinners  is  absolutely  free  ;  no  way  requiring  as 
absolutely  necessary,  any  qualifications,  prepara¬ 
tions,  or  terrors  of  the  law,  or  preceding  ministry 
of  the  law  ;  but  only  and  alone  the  naked  soul,  a 
sinner  and  ungodly,  to  receive  Christ  crucified,  dead, 
and  buried,  and  risen  again,  who  is  made  a  Prince 
and  a  Saviour  for  such  sinners  as  through  the  Gospel 
shall  be  brought  to  believe  on  him  ”  (25).  “  All 

believers  are  by  Christ  united  to  God,  by  which  union 
God  is  one  with  them  and  they  are  one  with  him.  ...” 
(27).  “  All  believers  are  a  holy  and  sanctified 

people.  .  .  .”  (29).  “All  believers  in  the  time  of 
this  life  are  in  a  continual  warfare  and  combat 
against  sin,  self,  the  world,  and  the  devil ;  and 
are  liable  to  all  manner  of  afflictions  .  .  .  and 
whatsoever  the  saints  possess  or  enjoy  of  God 


148  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


spiritually,  is  by  faith ;  and  outward  and  temporal 
things  are  lawfully  enjoyed  by  a  civil  right  by 
them  who  have  no  faith  ”  (31).  “  Jesus  Christ 
hath  here  on  earth  a  spiritual  kingdom,  which  is 
his  Church  .  .  .  which  is  a  company  of  visible 
saints,  called  and  separated  from  the  world  by  the 
word  and  Spirit  of  God,  to  the  visible  profession 
of  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  being  baptized  into 
that  faith,  and  joined  to  the  Lord,  and  each  to 
other,  by  mutual  agreement,  in  the  practical 
enjoyment  of  the  ordinances  commanded  by  Christ 
their  head  and  king  55  (33).  “To  this  Church  he 
hath  made  his  promises  .  .  (34).  “  Every 

church  hath  power  given  them  from  Christ,  for 
their  well-being,  to  choose  among  themselves 
meet  persons  for  pastors,  teachers,  elders,  and 
deacons  ”  (36).  “  Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  the 

New  Testament,  given  by  Christ,  to  be  dispensed 
upon  persons  professing  faith,  .  .  .  who  upon  pro¬ 
fession  of  faith,  ought  to  be  baptized,  and  after 
to  partake  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  ”  (39). 

Here  we  see  clearly  that  the  whole  conception 
of  the  Church  is  based  upon  the  experience  of 
conversion.  Members  must  be  converted  people, 
ministers  are  chosen  by  members,  the  sacraments, 
baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  alike,  to  be  ad¬ 
ministered  to  converted  people  only.  The  Par¬ 
ticular  Baptists,  then,  differentiated  themselves 
from  other  Churchmen  in  England,  not  upon  their 
notion  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  upon  their 
sense  of  the  unspeakable  importance  of  personal 
faith  and  conversion. 

If  we  have  this  in  mind,  all  the  subsequent 
developments  of  the  Baptist  movement  in  England 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


149 


are  explained,  and  each  such  development  illus¬ 
trates  the  place  of  conversion  in  Baptist  doctrine 
and  practice.  We  discover  the  secret  of  the  power 
alike  of  John  Bunyan’s  preaching  and  of  his 
allegories  when  we  remark  the  place  which  he 
as  a  Baptist  gives  to  conversion  in  his  whole 
theological  outlook.  Christian’s  personal  and 
individual  reception  of  Calvary  is  the  central  fact 
in  his  journey  from  Destruction  to  Heaven.  So 
too,  Dan  Taylor,  who  reorganised  the  General 
Baptists  in  1770  into  a  New  Connexion  after  the 
main  body  of  the  old  General  Baptist  Churches 
had  lapsed  into  Unitarianism,  gained  his  striking 
power  by  the  preaching  of  conversion,  and  so 
with  Andrew  Fuller,  John  Ryland,  Robert  Hall, 
and  Charles  Haddon  Spurgeon  in  our  own 
times. 

Closely  related  to  this,  a  curious  collateral  conse¬ 
quence  of  the  peculiar  emphasis  placed  by  Baptists 
on  the  doctrine  of  conversion  may  be  briefly  noted. 
Preaching  was  to  them  the  supreme  function. 
They  had  to  call  men  to  repentance  and  faith. 
They  called  their  pastors  then  by  preference 
“Preachers,”  while  the  Independents  held  to  the 
word  “minister.”  Among  the  Baptists  of  the  Con¬ 
tinent  this  custom  is  still  maintained,  though  it 
came  into  existence  quite  independently  of  British 
influence,  and  in  Germany,  Russia,  Austria,  Hun¬ 
gary,  and  other  parts,  the  minister  is  always  known 
as  Preacher  So-and-so. 


150  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


We  must  now  turn  to  look  at  this  more  in  detail, 
and  see  how  this  Baptist  contribution  to  the  religious 
life  of  these  times  has  operated  in  various  directions. 
The  Baptist  Churches  came  into  being  at  a  time  of 
religious  intolerance.  Their  central  doctrine  re¬ 
acted  immediately  upon  this,  and  resulted  in  an 
event  momentous  not  only  to  the  Church  in 
England,  but  to  the  Church  universal,  viz.  the 
enunciation  of  the  full  doctrine  of  religious  liberty. 
This  doctrine  is  the  logical  and  necessary  outcome 
of  the  Baptist  theological  position.  It  is  involved 
in  that  position  quite  apart  from  any  persecutions 
to  which  Baptists  as  such  were  exposed,  and  the 
persecutions  themselves  only  gave  the  occasion  for 
its  proper  elaboration.  It  is  sometimes  suggested 
that  the  cry  for  toleration  and  indeed  liberty  of 
worship  came  naturally  from  those  who  suffered 
persecution.  This  is  only  true  in  a  limited  fashion. 
The  natural  plea  of  the  persecuted  is  not  that 
persecution  is  essentially  and  absolutely  wrong, 
but  that  it  is  wrongly  applied  to  them.  Romanists, 
Puritans,  Presbyterians,  and  Independents  alike 
claimed  toleration  and  liberty  for  themselves,  but 
they  did  not  offer  it  to  every  one.  When  Roger 
Williams,  the  founder  of  the  American  Baptist 
Churches,  went  to  New  England,  he  found  that  the 
Puritan  exiles  were  by  no  means  enamoured  of 
toleration,  but,  on  the  contrary,  very  ready  to 
persecute,  e.g.,  Quakers,  and  consequently  he  was 
forced  to  found  the  new  colony  of  Rhode  Island 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


151 


in  order  to  secure  the  liberty  he  desired.  The 
reluctance  with  which  many  Separatists  regarded 
the  idea  of  religous  liberty  may  be  illustrated  by 
the  saying  of  Catherine  Chidley,  a  great  publicist 
in  New  England  about  1640,  who  in  answer  to 
the  reductio  ad  absurdam  that  if  Separatists  were 
tolerated  Jews  and  Anabaptists  [meaning  Baptists] 
must  also  be  tolerated,  merely  said  :  “  For  my 

part  I  speak  for  myself,  and  I  suppose  that  they 
may  say  as  much  for  themselves.”  In  contra¬ 
distinction  from  this  characteristic  attitude  among 
English  Churchmen  of  all  denominations  up  to  1612, 
was  the  Baptist  position  which  was  first  put  into 
a  Confession  by  John  Smyth  when  he  said,  “  That 
the  magistrate  is  not  by  virtue  of  his  office  to 
meddle  with  religion,  or  matters  of  conscience,  to 
force  or  compel  men  to  this  or  that  form  of  religion 
or  doctrine  :  but  ...  to  handle  only  civil  trans¬ 
gressions.”  Why  did  John  Smyth  and  his  fellows 
come  to  this  conclusion  ?  Was  it,  as  Professor 
Gardiner  says,  “  because  they  were  exposed  to 
contempt  and  persecution  ”  ?  No,  for  they  were 
not  alone  in  this  suffering,  though  they  were  alone 
in  this  teaching.  The  real  dynamic  which  drove 
them  to  their  position  was  the  faith  they  had  in 
the  centrality  of  conversion,  their  belief  that  all 
depended  on  the  Lordship  of  Christ  in  the  in¬ 
dividual  soul,  and  that  for  the  civil  magistrate 
to  challenge  soul -liberty  was  ultra  vires.  John 
Smyth  bases  the  Article  which  I  quoted  just  now 


152  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


thus  :  “  The  magistrate  is  not  to  meddle  with 

matters  of  conscience  .  .  .  for  Christ  only  is  the 
king  and  lawgiver  of  the  Church  and  conscience.” 
Leonard  Busher  put  the  matter  in  a  still  more 
pointed  way  in  his  Plea  for  Liberty  of  Conscience , 
that  noble  tract  which  has  never  been  surpassed 
for  its  lofty  handling  of  the  whole  question.  His 
argument  is  briefly  this  :  Men  become  Christians 
by  the  new  birth,  not  by  natural  birth.  But  the 
new  birth  is  the  effect  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  and  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  Fire  and  sword 
and  penal  laws  cannot  defend  or  maintain  or  pro¬ 
pagate  the  Gospel.  Persecution  must  be  inimical 
to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  it  can  in  no  circumstances 
carry  Christ’s  commission,  but  must  in  all  circum¬ 
stances  be  antichristian.  This  grand  argument 
for  liberty  of  conscience,  first  published  by  Busher, 
was  carried  on  thereafter  by  a  succession  of  Baptist 
pamphleteers,  some  of  them,  like  Morton,  being 
General  Baptists,  and  others,  like  Samuel  Richard¬ 
son,  Particular  Baptists.  It  is  well  we  should 
clearly  understand  the  largeness  of  this  notion  of 
religious  liberty.  The  Baptist  writers  asserted  it 
on  the  simple  grounds  (i.)  that  conversion  could  not 
be  forced,  and  so  no  doctrine,  however  right, 
should  be  backed  by  temporal  power,  and  (ii.)  that 
all  converted  people,  to  whatever  particular  doc¬ 
trinal  or  ritual  or  Church  order  they  belonged, 
had  to  answer  for  their  faith  solely  to  their  King 
Christ  Jesus.  This  second  ground  made  persecution 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


153 


among  Christians  abhorrent,  while  the  first  urged 
that  liberty  of  conscience  must  be  universal.  I 
may  be  permitted  to  dwell  upon  this,  because  it  is 
a  common  illusion  that  Baptists  are  narrow  and 
uncharitable  in  their  relations  with  other  Church¬ 
men.  In  point  of  fact,  the  exact  contrary  is  the 
case.  Here  is  an  extract  from  John  Smyth’s 
Long  Confession  :  “  All  penitent,  faithful  Christians 
are  brethren  in  the  communion  of  the  outward 
Church,  wheresoever  they  live,  by  what  name 
soever  they  are  known,  which,  in  truth  and  zeal, 
follow  repentance  and  faith,  though  compassed 
with  never  so  many  ignorances  and  infirmities  ; 
and  we  salute  them  all  with  an  holy  kiss.”  Up  to 
the  present  day  Baptists  have  always  been  marked 
with  readiness  to  co-operate  with  all  Christian 
people.  A  further  interesting  illustration  of  this 
we  may  cull  from  the  correspondence  which  Dr. 
Peter  Chamberlen,  the  Baptist  physician  to 
Charles  n.,  entered  upon  with  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  urging  measures  towards  Christian 
Unity.  The  time  had  come,  he  said,  when  they 
should  find,  “  not  how  far  they  can  Differ  and 
Quarrel  Each  other,  but  How  Close  they  can  Unite 
and  become  all  of  Christ.”  This  was  in  1682. 

The  results  of  this  doctrine  of  liberty  of  conscience 
were  momentous.  The  doctrine  impinged  im¬ 
mediately  upon  political  life.  It  protested  against 
all  differentiation  in  civil  matters  between  the 
holders  of  varying  religious  beliefs,  and  inevitably 


154  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


carried  its  professors  on  toward  a  very  high  view 
of  civil  liberty,  accentuating  and  reinforcing  the 
doctrines  already  promulgated  by  Independents. 
Tyranny  was  to  the  Baptists  evil  whether  exercised 
by  a  King  or  a  Protector,  and  while  Baptists  took 
a  considerable  part  in  the  struggle  against  Charles  i., 
their  stand  against  Cromwell  in  some  of  his  later 
acts  is  still  more  significant.  Firth,  in  his  Last 
Years  of  the  Protectorate ,  tells  us  how  the  Baptist 
congregations  and  ministers  petitioned  Cromwell 
against  allowing  himself  to  be  made  King.  He 
tells  us  also  how,  when  Cromwell  had  finally  dis¬ 
solved  his  last  Parliament,  he  called  his  officers 
together  to  persuade  them  that  his  policy  was  for 
the  good  of  religion  and  the  freedom  of  worship. 
Thereupon  one  captain,  a  Baptist,  “  said  plainly 
that  if  he  could  not  have  liberty  of  conscience 
without  the  nation’s  losing  their  civil  liberties,  he 
would  risk  it,  or  seek  for  it  elsewhere.” 

This  love  of  religious  liberty,  which  made  devotion 
to  civil  liberty  stronger  than  ever  by  belief  in  the 
central  importance  of  conversion  and  the  sole  Lord- 
ship  of  King  Jesus  in  matters  of  religion,  had  far- 
reaching  effects.  It  speedily  won  its  way  amongst 
all  Separatists,  and  by  and  by  was  taken  up  by 
politicians  and  philosophers  like  John  Locke.  It 
became  to  some  extent  incorporated  in  the  British 
law  system  after  1688,  and,  largely  through  the 
writings  of  the  philosophers,  was  taken  up  into  the 
teaching  of  Frenchmen  like  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau, 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


155 


and  so,  through  the  French  Revolution,  modified  in  a 
liberalising  sense  the  whole  development  of  Western 
political  institutions.  Meanwhile  the  doctrine  was 
carried  to  America  by  Roger  Williams,  who  in¬ 
corporated  it  into  the  constitution  of  his  new  colony 
of  Rhode  Island  (the  first  State  in  history  to  stand 
for  complete  religious  liberty).  This  constitution 
it  was  which  gave  to  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  their  model  in  the  matter  of  the 
relations  between  State  and  Church,  so  that  the 
part  played  by  American  influence  in  the  political 
upheaval  in  Europe  which  began  with  the  French 
Revolution,  leads  us  back  at  last  to  the  same 
fountain-head  —  the  centrality  of  conversion  and 
the  doctrine  of  religious  liberty  which  was  deduced 
from  that,  and  which  strengthened  greatly  the 
doctrine  of  civil  liberty  too. 

So  we  come  into  view  of  the  first,  though  not 
perhaps  most  notable,  reaction  of  the  Baptist 
conception  of  the  Church  as  determined  by  the 
centrality  of  conversion.  It  reacted  upon  the  law 
of  the  land  to  make  for  greater  liberty.  The  Baptist 
plea  for  liberty  of  conscience  did  not,  however, 
gain  an  immediate  response  from  Government. 
With  the  short  interval  of  the  Commonwealth, 
Baptists  were  persecuted  in  England,  along  with 
many  other  types  of  Churchmen,  for  generations. 
The  immediate  question  for  the  first  Baptists  was, 
then,  not  whether  they  ought  to  be  tolerated,  but 
whether  they  could  survive  intolerance.  And  here 


156  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


they  were  undoubtedly  assisted  by  that  very  tenet 
which  called  for  liberty — the  centrality  of  con¬ 
version.  They  were  not  a  large  body.  They 
never  have  been  a  very  considerable  proportion  of 
the  population  of  these  islands.  But  they  were  a 
compact  and  chosen  body.  They  had  to  stand 
the  test  of  public  confession  by  the  ordeal  of  immer¬ 
sion.  None  but  a  man  of  deep  conviction  and  real 
religious  experience  would  join  them,  so  that  in 
persecution  they  would  be  unlikely  to  lose  many 
of  their  adherents  as  renegades.  And  this  tenacity 
of  purpose  they  did  exemplify  through  all  those 
bitter  decades,  and  not  only  did  they  hold  their 
own,  but  in  the  two  reigns  that  followed  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  actually  made  considerable  progress. 
It  must  in  justice  be  noted,  however,  that  the 
Baptists  fully  entered  upon  the  faults  which  corre¬ 
sponded  to  their  virtues.  They  had  more  than 
their  share  of  turbulent  and  militant  advocates 
who  could  not  endure  persecution  with  patience 
and  meekness.  Baptist  preachers  and  Baptist 
laymen  were  from  1660  to  1672  but  too  ready  to 
conspire  and  rebel,  and  men  like  Pooley,  Blood, 
Gower,  and  Wigan,  brought  much  disrepute  upon 
their  fellows.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  well  to 
remember  that  Baptists  as  a  whole  had  no  sympathy 
with  these  turbulent  souls. 

We  now  turn  to  consider  the  second  great  contri¬ 
bution  to  the  life  of  the  Church  made  by  the  Baptist 
Churches  by  virtue  of  their  peculiar  belief  in  the 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


157 


centrality  of  conversion.  The  first  was  rdigious 
liberty.  The  second  we  shall  now  see  to  be 
foreign  missionary  enterprise.  The  time  of  trial 
in  which  the  first  generations  of  Baptists  lived 
came  at  last  to  an  end,  and  as  the  Baptists  gained 
the  opportunity  of  peaceful  development,  a  testing¬ 
time  of  a  very  different  order  began.  The  pressure 
from  outside  being  largely  removed,  among  the 
General  Baptists  and  Particular  Baptists  alike 
tendencies  adverse  to  their  real  genius  arose.  The 
General  Baptists  were  afflicted  with  Socinianism 
and  the  Particular  Baptists  with  hyper-Calvinism, 
each  heresy  setting  the  centrality  of  conversion 
aside,  with  the  result  that  4 4  Baptist  preachers 
ceased  largely  to  warn,  exhort,  and  invite  sinners, 
and  a  dry  rot  set  in.”  The  General  Baptists 
declined  from  a  membership  of  20,000  in  Charles  n.’s 
reign  to  10,000  in  George  n.’s.  The  Particular 
Baptists  also  suffered.  Of  course  we  must  re¬ 
member  that  religion  throughout  England  was  now 
at  a  very  low  ebb.  It  would  be  surprising,  how¬ 
ever,  to  find  that  Baptists  did  not  suffer  more  than 
others,  for  the  loss  of  faith  in  conversion  meant  to 
them  the  loss  of  all. 

The  Baptists  won  through  this  time  of  testing 
with  the  help  of  that  great  spiritual  revival 
associated  with  the  Wesleys.  No  sooner  had  this 
quickening  swept  through  the  land  than  the  Baptists 
saw  as  in  a  new  blaze  of  glory  their  own  peculiar 
faith.  The  time  of  reaction  passed,  and  a  new 


158  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


chapter  of  extraordinary  usefulness  began  for  the 
Baptist  Churches.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that 
not  till  now,  the  third  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  did  the  Baptists  thoroughly  appreciate 
and  put  into  action  the  real  significance  and  range 
of  their  own  doctrine  of  conversion.  Coming  back 
again  to  this  great  doctrine,  they  saw  afresh  what 
the  few  Baptists  of  the  first  years  had  indeed  seen, 
but  had  never  had  leisure  or  means  to  put  into 
practice.  This  was  the  great  duty  of  the  Church 
to  preach  the  Gospel  to  all  the  world,  or,  to  use 
technical  terms  now  in  vogue,  the  duty  of  foreign 
missionary  enterprise.  The  modern  foreign  mission 
movement  was  then  the  second  great  contribution 
made  by  the  Baptists  by  virtue  of  their  funda¬ 
mental  faith  in  conversion.  True,  this  faith  was 
quickened  in  them  by  the  Wesleyan  revival,  but  the 
fact  remains  that  the  pioneers  in  the  missionary 
movement  were  Baptists.  In  1792,  after  an  agita¬ 
tion  extending  over  several  years,  the  Baptist 
Missionary  Society  was  founded  under  the  leader¬ 
ship  of  William  Carey  and  Andrew  Fuller.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  speak  at  length  of  William  Carey, 
the  cobbler  preacher  of  Moulton,  in  Northampton, 
who,  in  seven  years,  with  hardly  any  help  from  any 
teacher,  learned  enough  of  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew, 
French,  and  Dutch  to  read  readily  in  those  languages. 
It  is  well  to  remember,  however,  how  greatly  he 
laboured.  When  he  arrived  in  India  he  so  set 
himself  to  the  study  of  languages  for  the  purposes 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


159 


of  Biblical  translation,  that  he  not  only  became 
the  greatest  linguist  of  India,  but  himself  produced 
versions  of  the  Bible  in  Sanskrit,  Bengali,  Hindi, 
and  Marathi ;  and  during  his  lifetime,  and  under 
his  supervision,  the  Serampore  press,  which  he 
established,  issued  the  Bible,  or  portions  of  it,  in 
thirty-six  languages  or  dialects.  But  we  have  not 
to  deal  now  with  William  Carey  or  any  other 
individual. 

What  we  have  to  ask  is,  how  came  it  that  the 
virile,  purposeful  missionary  movement  of  the 
nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries  should  have 
its  origin  in  the  Baptist  churches  ?  Was  it  acci¬ 
dental  that  Baptists  rather  than  others  should  do 
this  great  thing  ?  No,  it  was  the  natural  working- 
out  of  the  central  principle  of  the  Baptists,  the 
doctrine  that  individual  man  needs  conversion, 
and  that  the  Church  exists  to  call  men  to  conversion. 
The  idea  of  the  world-wide  missionary  function  of 
the  Church  was  already  there  in  the  grand  con¬ 
ceptions  of  the  first  Baptist  pioneers,  as  well  as 
in  the  act  of  the  removal  of  their  first  church  from 
Amsterdam  to  London.1  It  was  there  implicitly 
in  any  case,  but  more  than  that,  it  was  to  a  large 
extent  explicit  also.  Listen  to  what  Leonard 

1  “  It  was  a  true  evangelical  impulse  dictated  the  return  in  1611 
.  .  .  bonds  and  afflictions  awaited  them,  but  they  held  not  their 
life  of  any  account  dear  to  themselves,  so  that  they  might  accom¬ 
plish  their  course  and  the  ministry  which  they  received  from  the 
Lord  Jesus.” — Principal  Gould,  M.A.,  in  The  Tercentenary  of  the 
Modern  Baptist  Denomination. 


160 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Busher  says  in  liis  tract  “  Religion’s  Peace  ” : 
“  For  Christ  saith,  Except  a  man  be  born  again , 
he  cannot  see  the  Jcingdo?n  of  God.  .  .  .  Therefore 
Christ  commanded  this  word  to  be  preached  to 
all  nations,  that  thereby  they  may  attain  the  new 
birth.”  That  he  had  plainly  in  view  the  ultimate 
preaching  of  the  gospel  in  non-Christian  lands  is  to 
be  seen  in  his  plea  that  the  persecution  of  those  who 
preach  the  gospel  at  home  must  be  a  great  hindrance 
when  preachers  come  to  non-Christian  lands,  “for,” 
says  Busher,  “thereby  are  the  Jews,  Turks,  and 
pagans  occasioned  and  encouraged  to  persecute 
likewise  all  such  as  preach  and  teach  Christ  in  their 
dominions.”  To  every  Baptist  it  must  be  clear 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  Christians  to  convert  men  of 
every  nationality  and  religion  to  Christ,  and  it  only 
needed  a  man  of  high  courage  and  imagination, 
reflecting  upon  the  Baptist  position  and  the  state 
of  the  world,  to  discover  that  he  and  his  fellow- 
Churchmen  were  called  upon  to  take  practical 
measures  to  secure  the  conversion  of  the  heathen. 
Such  a  man  was  William  Carey.  In  1789  he  wrote 
his  Inquiry  into  the  Obligations  of  Christians  to 
use  Means  for  the  Conversion  of  the  Heathen. 
Four  years  after,  Carey  himself,  in  company  with  a 
physician  named  Thomas,  set  sail  for  India  to 
attempt  the  fulfilment  of  the  great  commission 
which  enjoins  the  teaching  and  baptizing  of  all 
nations. 

The  effect  of  this  epoch-making  action  of  the 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


161 


small  and  despised  Baptist  body  was  tremendous. 
It  passed  through  the  whole  Church  in  England 
with  quickening  energy.  The  formation  of  the 
Baptist  Missionary  Society  was  rapidly  followed  by 
the  formation  of  the  London  Missionary  Society, 
and  then  by  others.  The  Edinburgh  Conference 
indicates  in  sufficiently  dramatic  fashion  the  extent 
to  which  Carey’s  initiative  has  been  a  blessing, 
not  only  to  all  Christian  life  in  England,  but  to  all 
the  world,  and  also  shows  how  a  daring  and  thorough 
obedience  to  their  own  distinctive  doctrine  has  done 
more  to  realise  the  dream  of  Christian  Unity  which 
many  Baptists  like  Peter  Chamberlen  cherished,  than 
any  amount  of  zealous  denunciation  of  those  who 
rejected  that  doctrine. 

Having  seen  these  two  great  contributions  to 
Christendom  made  by  virtue  of  the  doctrine  of 
conversion,  we  have  to  ask  whether  modern  Baptists 
stand  for  the  same  principle.  The  answer  is 
emphatically  “Yes.”  The  general  movements  of 
the  three  hundred  years  during  which  Baptist 
churches  have  flourished  in  this  country,  have 
resulted  in  three  main  modifications  of  the  Baptist 
position.  All  of  these  modifications,  however,  have 
tended  to  enhance  the  central  Baptist  principle. 
We  can  do  no  more  than  glance  rapidly  at  them. 

1.  The  first  has  to  do  with  the  subordination 
of  doctrinal  differences  in  view  of  the  common 
religious  experience  to  which  conversion  testifies. 

We  have  seen  that  two  groups  of  Baptists  existed 
x  i 


162  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


originally — the  one  Arminian  and  the  other  Calvin- 
istic.  These  two  bodies  are  now  fused  into  one, 
in  which  no  doctrinal  test  is  recognised.  Baptist 
churches  in  the  same  town  are  very  different  in 
respect  of  theology,  and  yet  communicate  with  one 
another  in  the  most  unreserved  and  brotherly 
fashion.  It  is  fully  recognised  that  the  one  im¬ 
portant  thing  is  the  new  creature,  and  that  repentance 
and  faith  are  compatible  with  an  indefinite  variety 
of  doctrinal  positions.  It  is  in  harmony  with  this 
that  we  have  long  since  ceased  to  draw  up  and  issue 
Confessions  of  Faith.  The  Baptists  have  no  creed 
that  is  authoritative  for  all.  Again,  this  emphasises 
the  Baptist  insistence  on  conversion.  It  is  the  under¬ 
standing  that  members  must  be  converted  people, 
that  makes  it  possible  to  go  on  happily  without 
doctrinal  tests.  Of  course  there  are  Baptist 
remnants  that  do  not  share  this  spirit  to  the  full, 
but  they  are  relatively  insignificant. 

2.  The  next  modification  has  to  do  with  the 
elimination  among  many  Baptists  of  baptism  itself 
as  a  condition  of  church-fellowship,  conversion  being 
left  as  the  sole  qualification.  The  fact  that  baptism 
is  only  secondary  to  conversion  has  been  signalised 
in  recent  years  by  the  tendency  (startling  enough 
to  Churchmen  of  all  other  types)  to  make  it  otiose, 
or,  more  strictly,  to  make  baptism  and  church- 
membership  independent  of  one  another,  so  that 
baptism  is  no  longer  the  way  into  the  Church  at  all, 
even  for  the  believer.  Since  the  middle  of  last 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


163 


century,  under  the  influence  chiefly  of  Robert  Hall, 
there  has  grown  up  within  the  Baptist  denomination 
what  are  called  “  open  fellowship  churches.”  These 
churches  open  their  membership  to  those  who  have 
not  been  baptized.  This  does  not  mean  that  they 
recognise  infant  baptism.  It  simply  means  that 
they  look  upon  every  converted  person,  every  be¬ 
liever,  as  eligible  to  church-membership  whether 
baptized  or  not.  Such  churches  are  growing 
rapidly ;  they  still  administer  baptism,  but  they 
do  not  administer  it  as  a  condition  of  church-fellow¬ 
ship,  believing  that  if  made  a  condition  of  church- 
fellowship  its  voluntary  character  is  infringed  upon 
— and,  indeed,  the  rite  tends  to  take  the  place  of 
faith. 

3.  The  third  has  to  do  with  organisation.  The 
Baptist  position  has  been  modified,  or,  rather, 
consolidated  by  the  formation  of  the  Baptist  World 
Alliance. 

Though  the  Baptist  churches  are  independent, 
and  recognise  no  authority  outside  the  individual 
local  congregation  which  can  override  the  decisions 
of  that  local  church,  such  as  an  episcopate,  a  presby¬ 
tery,  or  a  conference,  they  have  always  sought  to 
band  themselves  together  in  a  confederacy  of 
mutual  help  and  comfort.  Churches  within  easy 
reach  of  one  another  have  formed  themselves  into 
associations,  so  that  now  the  whole  of  the  United 
Kingdom  is  divided  into  a  number  of  such  associa¬ 
tions,  each  comprising  a  county  or  some  group  of 


164  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


counties.  And  beyond  this  there  are  national 
unions — the  Welsh,  Scottish,  and  Irish  Baptist 
Unions,  and  the  Baptist  Union  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland.  The  growth  of  the  Baptist  movement 
has,  however,  been  so  great  during  the  nineteenth 
century  that  in  1905  the  Baptist  World  Alliance  was 
formed.  This  Alliance  comprises  some  seven  million 
actual  adult  members  of  Baptist  churches,  and, 
together  with  adherents,  represents  at  least  twenty 
million  souls  whose  spiritual  life,  Christian  character, 
missionary  ideals,  and  Churchmanship  are  nurtured 
by  means  of  the  Baptist  churches.  These  seven 
million  church  members  are  distributed  over  the 
world  as  follows  : — 

Europe,  about  600,000  ;  Asia,  about  200,000 ; 
Africa,  about  15,000  ;  America,  about  6,000,000  ; 
Australasia,  about  28,000.  In  Asia  and  Africa 
the  Baptist  churches  are  in  the  main  controlled  by 
missionaries,  and  are  the  creation  of  the  men  who 
are  foreigners  in  the  land  of  their  activities.  In 
America  and  Australasia  the  Baptist  churches  were 
originally  founded  by  emigrants  from  Great  Britain, 
though  in  the  case  of  America  this  statement  should 
have  some  modification.  It  is  on  the  continent  of 
Europe  that  the  rise  of  Baptist  churches  is  at  once 
the  most  interesting  and  instructive,  for  we  can 
to-day  watch  in  various  parts  of  Europe  exactly 
that  process  going  on  which  we  know  formed  the 
first  Baptist  churches  of  England.  The  European 
Baptist  churches  are  to  be  found  in  the  following 


The  baptist  churches  ieg 

countries  apart  from  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  : 
Austria,  6  churches  ;  Spain,  7  ;  Switzerland,  7  ; 
Roumania  and  Bulgaria,  11 ;  Holland,  23;  Denmark, 
31  ;  Norway,  40  ;  France,  with  Belgium  and  French 
Switzerland,  43  ;  Italy,  53  ;  Finland,  54  ;  Hungary, 
68  ;  Germany,  226  ;  Russia,  296  ;  and  Sweden,  607. 
In  the  case  of  Russia  the  figures  given  are  probably 
far  below  the  real  facts.  It  is  very  difficult  to  get 
statistics,  but  we  know  that  Baptist  churches  are 
to  be  found  throughout  the  Russian  Empire  from 
Warsaw  to  Harbin. 

How,  it  may  be  asked,  did  these  Baptist  churches 
come  to  be  founded  ?  Those  in  Spain,  France,  and 
Italy  have  been  formed  by  direct  action  from 
England  and  America,  though  they  are  becoming 
rapidly  more  and  more  self-supporting.  In  the  other 
countries,  however,  the  churches  have  arisen  more 
or  less  spontaneously.  The  bulk  of  them  owe  their 
life  originally  to  a  little  group  of  men  and  women, 
led  by  Oncken,  who  formed  a  Baptist  church  in 
Hamburg  about  eighty  years  ago.  This  man 
Oncken,  remarkable  for  his  energy,  piety,  and 
eloquence,  founded  Baptist  churches  wherever 
German  was  spoken — in  Austria,  Hungary,  Switzer¬ 
land,  and  Russia.  His  converts  also  founded  Baptist 
communities  in  Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden.  In 
many  parts  of  Europe,  however,  Baptist  churches 
sprang  up  unaided  by  any  kindling  from  without, 
as  the  direct  result  of  the  study  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  The  whole  story  of  the  spread  of  Baptist 


166  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


principles  throughout  Europe  is  fascinating  and 
romantic  to  a  degree,  and  it  is  possible  for  us  to  see 
in  various  parts  of  Europe  exactly  those  conditions 
and  processes  at  work  which  we  know  at  various 
times  obtained  in  this  country.  We  can  see  Baptist 
churches  in  Russia  thriving  in  spite  of  persecution, 
and  standing  boldly  for  religious  liberty  like  British 
churches  in  the  seventeenth  century.  We  can  see 
Baptist  churches  in  Hungary,  free,  but  suffering 
from  those  very  dangers  which  beset  the  British 
Baptist  churches  in  the  eighteenth  century.  We  can 
witness  missionary  zeal  springing  up  everywhere 
as  a  proper  understanding  of  the  Baptist  position 
is  arrived  at,  so  that  peasant  churches  from  the 
Balkans,  Russian  Baptists  beyond  the  Urals,  and 
the  much-distressed  and  scattered  Baptists  of 
Austria,  vie  with  the  more  prosperous  and  orderly 
German  and  Swedish  Baptists  in  supporting  foreign 
missionary  enterprise.  The  importance  of  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Baptists  is  keenly 
realised  by  these  continental  brethren.  The 
centrality  of  conversion  is  the  secret  of  their  strength, 
and  believing  in  it  they  thrive  and  grow  as  does  no 
other  Christian  body  wholly  independent  of  State 
support  in  these  various  lands — perhaps,  we  might 
say,  as  does  no  other  Christian  body  on  the  Continent. 

As  this  paper  is  brought  to  a  close,  it  is  worth  while 
to  hark  back  to  the  thought  from  which  we  started. 
The  Baptists  believe  themselves  Churchmen.  They 
believe  that  the  Church  of  Christ  in  England  is 


THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES 


167 


larger  than  any  of  the  groups  into  which  its  members 
have  been  forced  by  the  operation  of  historic 
processes  in  the  national  development.  They  believe 
that  these  processes  are  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  that  the  various  denominations  are  due  to 
a  differentiation  of  the  Church  at  the  bidding  of 
the  Holy  Spirit — a  differentiation  resulting  in  the 
rediscovery  and  elaboration  of  a  series  of  truths 
and  principles  profoundly  valuable  to  the  Church. 
They  believe  that  one  day  the  denominations  will 
realise  their  essential  unity  in  Christ,  and  that  this 
shall  be  when  each  has  appropriated  those  spiritual 
contributions  which,  by  the  grace  of  God,  all  the 
denominations  have  made  to  that  Holy  Catholic 
Church  of  which  each  is  a  part. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


BY 

EDWARD  GRUBB,  M.A. 


169 


A  ‘‘Mystical,’5  or  Experimental,  Element  Fundamental 
in  Christianity  from  the  Beginning. 

Its  affiliation  with  the  prophetic  (not  the  priestly)  movement 
in  Israel. 

A  Christian  was  one  who  had  received  the  Spirit,  with  its 
ethical  fruits. 

This  the  privilege  of  all  believers  on  equal  terms. 

The  Church  as  the  Association  of  such  Believers.  Causes 
of  its  Hardening  into  an  Organisation,  which  resol¬ 
utely  repressed  Independent  Life. 

Spiritual  Nature  of  the  Reformation,  as  a  Return  to 
the  Primitive  Experience. 

But  this  in  turn  hardens  into  a  system  based  on  the  outward 
authority  of  the  Bible. 

How  the  Soil  of  Human  Hearts  in  the  Countries  of  the 
Reformation  was  Prepared  for  the  Preaching  of  the 
Quakers. 

George  Fox’s  Spiritual  Experience  a  Recovery  of  First- 
Hand  Knowledge  of  God. 

Its  ethical  results  in  his  own  life  and  in  that  of  his  followers. 

This  (unknown  to  most  of  them)  was  a  Recovery  of  the 
Essential  Spirit  of  the  Reformation. 

But  in  two  respects  it  went  much  further  : 

(i.)  Fox  based  his  whole  Church  polity  on  immediate 
revelation  of  the  mind  of  God — his  disuse  of  a 
separated  ministry  and  sacraments. 

(ii.)  Immediate  revelation  (in  some  degree)  the  privi¬ 
lege  of  all  men.  “  Universal  and  Saving  Light.” 

The  Social  and  Ethical  Results  of  this  Belief  :  Missionary 
Effort  and  “Philanthropy”  its  Necessary  Outcome. 

How  the  Quakers  reconciled  it  with  their  Evangelical 
Experience  of  Salvation  through  Christ  :  their 
Thoughts  moved  on  Johannine  Lines. 

Insistence  on  inward  as  contrasted  with  merely  forensic 
righteousness. 

But  there  is  a  Fundamental  Weakness  in  their  Theo¬ 
retical  Position,  especially  as  to  the  Seat  of  Auth¬ 
ority  :  the  Spirit  not  a  “  Rule  ”  of  Faith  and 
Practice. 

Source  of  this  antinomy  to  be  found  in  their  failure  to  tran¬ 
scend  seventeenth-century  dualism. 

Doctrine  of  Divine  Immanence,  expressed  in  its  terms,  led 
to  the  infallibility  of  the  individual. 

Unfortunate  Results  of  this  Weakness,  especially  in 
Disparagement  of  Need  for  Religious  Teaching. 

Yet  the  survival  of  the  Society,  and  its  present  hopefulness, 
is  evidence  of  the  depth  and  reality  of  its  Evangelical 
experience. 


170 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


I  feel  profoundly  my  inability,  through  lack  of  the 
necessary  historical  and  theological  knowledge,  to 
treat  this  great  subject  as  it  deserves  ;  and  yet 
even  a  very  modest  contribution  to  this  course  of 
lectures,  from  a  point  of  view  which  is  rather  different 
from  that  of  any  of  the  other  speakers,  may  not 
be  altogether  valueless. 

Two  recent  experiences  have  added  courage  for 
undertaking  a  very  difficult  and  rather  presump¬ 
tuous  task.  A  few  years  ago,  when  I  was  President 
of  a  local  Free  Church  Council,  I  received  several 
invitations  to  speak  at  Sunday  evening  services  of 
Baptists  and  Congregationalists,  on  “The  Message 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  to  its  Sister  Churches  55  ; 
and  on  each  occasion  the  testimony  was  spon¬ 
taneously  given  by  some  of  my  hearers,  “  Why, 
that  is  exactly  what  we  believe  ourselves.”  And 
when,  rather  later,  I  published  a  little  book  on 
the  subject  of  authority  in  religion,  some  of  the 
warmest  expressions  of  appreciation  came  from 
men  and  women  of  High  Church  sympathies  in  the 
Anglican  communion.  These  two  facts  may  serve 
to  show  how  far  we  have  travelled,  in  the  direction 

171 


1 72  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  inward  unity  and  mutual  understanding,  since 
the  days,  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  when  a 
Churchman  denounced  the  Quakers  as  “  a  sect 
lately  bred  as  vermin  out  of  the  putrid  matter 
and  corruptions  of  former  times,”  1  and  when  the 
saintly  Richard  Baxter  could  ask,  “Was  there 
ever  a  generation  of  men  on  whom  the  image  of 
the  devil  was  more  visible  than  on  these  (Quakers)  ?  ”  2 
There  is,  undoubtedly,  deep  hidden  beneath  all 
our  surface  differences,  a  fellowship  of  those  who 
are  seeking  the  same  truth,  who  worship  the  same 
Lord,  who  have  been  baptized  into  some  measure 
of  the  same  Christian  experience  ;  and  my  most 
earnest  desire  is  that  these  lectures  may  do  some¬ 
thing  to  deepen  and  broaden  the  sense  of  unity 
in  the  “  one  flock  ”  that  is  gathered  under  the 
“  one  Shepherd  ”  from  many  folds. 

I  am  quite  unable  to  speak  as  an  expert  in 
Christian  history  ;  but  it  will,  I  suppose,  be  ad¬ 
mitted  by  almost  every  one  that  a  “  mystical,” 
or  experimental,  element  has  been  fundamental 
in  genuine  Christianity  from  its  earliest  days.  It 
is  clear  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels  that  the  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  disciples  was  linked  on 
by  the  closest  ties  to  the  prophetic  movement  in 
Hebrew  history ;  that  it  had  little  connexion 
with  the  priestly  and  ceremonial  development 


1  From  the  Index  to  Samuel  Fisher’s  Rusticus  ad  Academicos 
(1660),  an  Apologia  addressed  to  two  Anglican  clergymen. 

2  From  The  Quaker's  Catechism  (1657). 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


173 


which  went  on  alongside  of  the  prophetic  ;  that 
it  found  its  expression  in  the  synagogue  worship 
rather  than  in  the  temple  with  its  sacrifices.  The 
essence  of  “  prophecy,”  if  I  understand  it  rightly, 
was  the  sense  of  a  direct  and  personal  touch  from 
the  Spirit  of  God,  bringing  with  it  illumination 
and  revelation.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  Peter 
declares,  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  that  the  time 
of  which  the  prophet  Joel  foretold  has  now  arrived ; 
that  this  direct  and  personal  experience  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  revelation  is  now  no  longer  the  privilege 
of  a  few  highly  endowed  souls,  but  is  poured 
out  alike  upon  the  servants  and  the  handmaidens, 
that  is,  upon  all  who  have  come  by  faith  into  the 
true  filial  relation  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

As  Harnack  says :  “  Jesus  sought  to  kindle  in¬ 
dependent  religious  life,  and  He  did  kindle  it ;  yes, 
that  is  His  peculiar  greatness,  that  He  led  men  to  God 
so  that  they  lived  their  own  life  with  Him.”  1  The 
unique  feature  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  His 
personal  experience  of  Sonship  with  God ;  and  this 
experience  He  offered  to  be  shared  by  all  who  would 
come  into  a  right  relation  with  Himself.  The  religion 
of  His  followers  was,  at  bottom,  the  fellowship  of 
those  who  had  found  in  Him  their  true  filial  relation  to 
God,  who  knew  that  in  Jesus  God  had  come  to  them 
and  revealed  Himself  to  them  as  their  Father,  their 
Guide,  their  Great  Companion.  A  Christian  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  one  who  has  received  the 

1  The  Essence  of  Christianity. 


174  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Spirit.  It  is  because  Cornelius  and  his  friends  have 
received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  they  are 
claimed  by  St.  Peter  as  fit  candidates  for  baptism 
by  water,  and  the  claim  is  clearly  felt  to  be  unan¬ 
swerable  (Acts  x.  44-48).  In  St.  Paul’s  Epistles 
it  is  “  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ” 
who  “are  the  sons  of  God”  (Rom.  viii.  14).  In 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John  “we  know  that  He 
abideth  in  us,  by  the  Spirit  which  He  gave  us  ” 
(iii.  24). 

Now,  if  we  ask  what  this  reception  of,  or  baptism 
with,  the  Holy  Spirit  exactly  meant,  it  is  clear  we 
must  go  behind  its  outward  manifestations  in  such 
a  disturbance  of  the  normal  spiritual  equilibrium 
as  is  indicated  in  the  “  gift  of  tongues  ”  (whatever 
that  may  have  been),  to  the  inward  condition  of 
which  this  disturbance  was  the  expression.  It 
produced,  indeed,  an  excitement  which  might  be 
mistaken  for  physical  intoxication  (Eph.  v.  18)  ; 
but  its  real  “  fruit”  was  ethical  :  it  was  to  be 
known  by  its  power  to  yield  “  love,  joy,  peace, 
longsuffering,  meekness,  self-control  ”  (Gal.  v.  22). 
It  was,  essentially,  a  change  in  the  inward  man 
from  control  by  the  “  flesh  ”  to  control  by  the 
“Spirit  ”  (Rom.  viii.  5-9)  ;  it  was  the  replacement 
of  the  spirit  of  self-seeking  with  the  spirit  of  love 
to  God  and  man.  “  We  know  that  we  have  passed 
out  of  death  into  life  because  we  love  the  brethren  ” 
(1  John  iii.  14).  And  this  deep  ethical  change, 
wrought  in  the  inmost  heart  of  every  one  who 


r 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


175 


received  the  love  of  God  in  Christ,  carried  with 
it  an  illumination,  a  clearness  of  spiritual  vision, 
and  a  moral  energy,  that  raised  the  man  to  a 
wholly  new  level  of  insight,  efficiency,  and  power. 
It  was  “  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the 
knowledge  of  Him,”  by  which  “  the  eyes  of  the 
heart  ”  were  “  enlightened  ”  (Eph.  i.  17,  18)  ;  a 
“  strengthening  with  power  by  His  Spirit  in  the 
inward  man  ”  (Eph.  iii.  16). 

New  Testament  religion,  then,  if  I  have  begun  to 
apprehend  it  rightly,  centred  in  this  experience  of 
God  revealed  in  Jesus  direct  to  the  individual  soul. 
“  Christianity  in  the  golden  age,”  says  Dr.  Rufus 
M.  Jones,  “was  essentially  a  rich  and  vivid  con¬ 
sciousness  of  God,  rising  to  a  perfect  experience 
of  union  with  God  in  mind  and  heart  and  will.”  1 
The  privilege  of  this  direct  experience  of  God, 
reproducing  His  own  life  in  the  soul,  was  opened 
up  by  Jesus  Christ  to  every  believer  on  equal 
terms.  In  Him  there  is  “  neither  Jew  nor  Greek, 
neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor  female  ” 
(Gal.  iii.  28).  I  find  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament 
of  any  apostolic  or  priestly  caste,  who  were  to  be 
the  medium  of  communication  of  this  Divine 
“  grace  ”  to  the  laity.  Or,  rather,  there  is  no 
“  laity,”  for  all  have  the  priestly  privilege  of  direct 
access  to  God.  Nor  do  I  find  any  trace  of  insistence 
on  special  ceremonies  as  the  channels  by  which 
the  grace  of  God  is  to  reach  men’s  souls.  There 

1  Studies  in  Mystical  Religion,  p.  4, 


176  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


is  poetry,  indeed,  there  is  symbolism  ;  the  things 
that  are  seen  are  made,  as  by  the  insight  of  genius, 
to  carry  the  truth  of  the  unseen  ;  but  I  find  abso¬ 
lutely  no  material  which  can  be  used  to  discuss  the 
question  what  is,  or  what  is  not,  a  “  valid  ” 
sacrament. 

And  what  of  the  Church  ?  There  is  no  sign 
that  I  can  discover  in  the  New  Testament  of  any 
idea  of  the  Church  as  a  single,  universal,  visible 
organisation,  wielding  authority  over  the  souls  of 
men  as  the  only  medium  through  which  God  could 
communicate  with  them.  The  “  Church  55  of  the 
New  Testament  appears  to  me  to  be  simply  the 
natural  association,  in  the  happy  fellowship  of  a 
common  experience  and  a  common  love,  of  those 
who  have  been  brought,  each  for  himself  and 
herself,  into  vital  union  with  Jesus  Christ.  In 
Pauline  thought  it  is  a  living  organism  of  which 
Christ  is  the  head  ;  in  Johannine  it  consists  of  the 
branches  that  have  their  life  in  Him,  the  Vine  ; 
but  there  is  nothing  in  all  this  of  what  we  have 
learnt  to  associate  with  the  word  “  ecclesiastical.” 

As  Dr.  Rufus  Jones  says,  again:  “The  Church 
itself,  as  seen  in  its  simplest  conception,  is  a  mystical 
fellowship,  formed  and  gathered,  not  by  the  will 
of  man,  but  by  direct  revelation  of  God  in  the  soul. 
The  first  spiritual  stone  in  the  structure,  which  is 
to  defy  time  and  death,  is  a  person  who  is  chosen 
because  by  revelation  he  has  discovered  the  Divine 
in  the  human  ;  and  with  only  one  stone  ready 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


177 


Christ  sees  the  spiritual  building  of  the  ages  rising 
and  reaching  beyond  the  power  of  death.  Each 
believer  is  a  mystical  stone.  ...  In  a  word,  the 
authority  is  within  the  spiritual  soul,  and  not 
external  to  it.  Each  member  is  crowned  and 
mitred.”  1 

It  is  needless  now  to  trace,  even  if  I  had  the 
knowledge  to  do  it,  the  process  by  which,  as  the 
glow  of  the  first  happy  experience  faded,  the  early 
Church,  the  brotherhood  of  all  believers,  became 
hardened  into  a  rigid  system,  a  great  spiritual 
imperium,  whereby  a  graded  hierarchy  of  bishops 
and  priests  bore  sway  over  the  souls  and  lives  of 
men.  Such  a  change  may  seem  to  have  been 
necessitated  by  “  the  hardness  of  men’s  hearts,” 
and  the  paramount  need  for  safeguarding  the 
Church  against  false  teaching,  in  the  shape,  mainly, 
of  an  Oriental  “  gnosis  ”  which  threatened  to 
evaporate  the  water  of  life  into  clouds  of  intellectual 
speculation.  However  this  may  have  been,  of  the 
fact  there  can  be  no  question — that  the  Church 
very  quickly  changed,  and  that  by  the  end  of  the 
second  century  she  was  suppressing  as  heresy  the 
attempt  of  the  Montanists — associated,  no  doubt, 
with  an  admixture  of  extravagamce  and  error — 
to  reproduce  the  prophetic  fervours  of  individual 
experience  in  which  the  Church  itself  had  had  its 
origin. 

From  that  time  forward,  every  attempt  to  return 
1  Studies  in  Mystical  Religion,  p.  7. 


178  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


to  the  simplicity  and  spontaneity  of  the  early 
Christian  consciousness,  to  revive  the  freedom  of 
personal  experience  and  inspiration  of  which  Paul 
testifies  in  his  letters  to  his  friends  at  Corinth,  was 
regarded  as  a  danger  to  Church  order,  and  was 
usually  stamped  out  as  heresy.  There  was,  of 
course,  a  deep  vein  of  mysticism  in  many  of  the 
Greek  Fathers,  and  even  in  Augustine  ;  and  here 
and  there  a  prominent  Churchman,  like  John  the 
Scot  in  the  ninth  century,  contrived  with  difficulty 
to  hold  his  position  while  giving  utterance  to 
thoughts  and  experiences  that  were  independent 
of  priest  or  outward  authority.  There  was  probably 
never  a  time  when  deep  personal  piety,  and  the 
consciousness  of  a  direct  touch  with  God,  altogether 
died  out  in  the  Church  that  called  itself  by  the 
name  of  Christ ;  and  now  and  then,  in  a  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi  or  a  St.  Catherine  of  Siena,  the  genuine 
flame  of  first-hand  inspiration  and  revelation  broke 
out  once  more  as  a  light  in  a  darkened  age,  bringing 
back  to  men  something  of  the  freshness  and  glow 
of  the  early  experience.  But  every  movement  that 
suggested  basing  Christian  life  and  practice  on  this 
direct  consciousness  of  the  Spirit,  and  dispensing 
with  the  forms  and  regulations  of  the  dominant 
Church,  was  stamped  out  with  a  heavy  hand.  I 
need  only  mention  the  Waldenses  in  Northern 
Italy,  the  Albigenses  of  Southern  France,  and 
Wiclif  and  the  Lollards  in  England — all  of  whom, 
in  one  way  or  another,  sought  after  a  return  from 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


179 


the  bondage  of  ecclesiasticism  to  the  freedom,  the 
simplicity,  and  the  purity,  of  the  early  days  of 
Christianity. 

The  greatest  of  all  these  movements,  “  the 
Reformation,55  which  we  associate  with  the  name 
of  Luther,  was  in  essence,  if  I  understand  it  rightly, 
the  recovery  of  the  consciousness  of  personal  access 
to  God  through  faith  in  Christ,  apart  altogether 
from  the  institutions  of  the  organised  Church.  As 
the  late  Auguste  Sabatier  says  : — 

“  He  (Luther)  found  salvation  in  ignoring  the 
institution  and  entering  into  personal,  direct,  and 
immediate  relations  with  the  Master  of  Souls  and 
the  Author  of  life  and  grace.55 1 

The  Reformation  recovered  for  men  that  free 
and  joyous  entrance  into  personal  Christian  experi¬ 
ence,  in  which  the  soul  of  man  no  longer  grovelled 
before  the  authority  of  the  Church,  but  stood  erect 
in  the  immediate  presence  of  God.  This  is  the 
secret  of  its  power  and  joy  and  triumph.  But, 
unhappily,  its  promise  was  only  partially  made 
good.  As  in  the  early  Church,  the  first  glow  of 
experience  faded,  and  the  successors  of  Luther  and 
his  fellow-Reformers  were  faced  with  the  necessity 
of  making  good  their  position,  on  the  one  hand 
against  the  mighty  power  of  Rome,  and  on  the 
other  against  the  wilder  spirits  who  were  turning 
the  new-found  liberty  into  the  anarchy  of  indi- 

1  Religions  of  Authority,  etc.,  p.  151. 


180  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


vidual  licence.  To  fight  this  double  battle  they 
had  recourse  to  the  weapon  that  lay  nearest  to 
their  hands,  and  gradually  substituted,  for  the 
authority  of  an  infallible  Church,  that  of  an  in¬ 
fallible  “  Word  of  God  ”  which  they  found  in  the 
canon  of  Scripture. 

Nominally  they  held  to  the  position  of  Luther 
and  Zwingli  and  Calvin,  that  the  ultimate  authority 
is  not  without,  but  within,  and  is  to  be  found  in  the 
“  testimony  of  the  Spirit,”  which  shines  upon  the 
pages  of  the  Bible,  and  brings  home  to  the  soul 
an  indubitable  witness  of  its  truth.  The  Reformed 
Confessions  of  Faith  taught  that  the  books  of  the 
Bible  are  to  be  known  as  the  Word  of  God,  “  not 
so  much  because  of  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Church,  as  in  virtue  of  the  inward  witness  and 
persuasion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom  we  are 
made  wise  to  discover  and  set  apart  these  from 
other  ecclesiastical  books.”  1 

But  in  practice  this  was  too  often  ignored  and 
forgotten,  and  the  Bible  came  to  be  set  up  as  a  purely 
external  standard  of  infallible  guidance  to  truth 
and  duty.  The  early  Reformers,  as  I  have  said, 
had  recovered  the  light  and  warmth  of  primitive 
Christianity  by  discovering  the  seat  of  authority 
within  and  not  without,  in  the  Christian  conscious¬ 
ness  and  not  in  the  infallible  dicta  of  Pope  or 
Council.  But  in  the  stress  of  controversy  this  living 
and  inward  testimony  to  truth  and  goodness  was 
1  Quoted  by  A.  Sabatier,  Religions  of  Authority,  etc.,  p.  159. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


181 


once  more  replaced  by  an  external  witness,  removed 
further  than  ever  from  the  heart  that  hungers  for 
certitude.  The  final  authority  was  to  be  found 
not  in  the  present  experience  of  the  renewed  soul 
with  its  purified  vision,  not  even  in  any  present 
and  living  organisation  that  could  guide  and  teach 
by  expressing  the  mind  of  God  in  relation  to  new 
conditions  as  they  arose  ;  it  was  enshrined  within 
the  covers  of  a  book  to  which  no  chapter  had  been 
added  for  fifteen  hundred  years.  The  logical  out¬ 
come  of  this,  which  became  the  Puritan  position, 
was  that  the  living  God  was  removed  far  into  the 
distant  past  ;  that  His  voice  was  no  longer  audible  ; 
that  He  had  ceased  to  speak  to  men  when  the  Bible 
was  completed ;  that  His  revelation  of  Himself 
to  men  had  become  a  fossil,  stored  carefully  in  a 
museum  of  antiquities. 

Men  are  constantly  better  than  their  creeds, 
and  I  do  not  for  one  moment  suggest  that  many  who 
in  theory  held  this  dreary  dogma  had  not  in  practice 
a  real  and  vital  communion  with  the  living  God. 
But  the  result  of  their  preaching  was  that  thousands 
of  hungry  souls  “  looked  up  and  were  not  fed  ”  ; 
that  the  lands  where  the  Reformation  had  taken 
root  were  filled  with  “  seekers  ”  who  were  asking  and 
hungering  for  the  true  bread  from  heaven  and 
could  not  find  it.  Scattered  communities  of  men 
and  women  in  revolt  from  the  authorities  of  their 
day,  like  the  “  Family  of  Love  55  and  the  Ana¬ 
baptists,  professed  to  have  found  for  themselves  ap 


182  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


immediate  revelation  ;  but  in  too  many  cases  their 
lives  and  conduct  disgraced  their  profession,  and, 
like  the  excesses  that  followed  the  French  Revolu¬ 
tion,  drove  back  austere  and  timid  souls  to  outward 
authorities  to  safeguard  them  from  the  dangers 
of  liberty. 

So  it  was  that,  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  the  soil  of  human  hearts,  in  these  countries 
of  the  Reformation,  was  ready  for  a  new  sowing 
of  the  seed  of  the  heavenly  Kingdom.  It  was  this 
that  brought  the  seekers  after  God  to  listen  in  great 
crowds  to  the  shepherd  lad,  George  Fox,  who  told 
them  of  what  he  himself  had  found — that,  when 
all  the  priests  and  all  the  44  professors  55  had  failed 
him,  he  had  found  4 4  One,  even  Jesus  Christ,  who 
could  speak  to  his  condition.”  Fox  came  to  them 
with  no  44  New  Theology,”  woven  by  processes  of 
thought ;  no  lore  of  Schoolmen,  gained  from  the 
study  of  books ;  no  dream  of  a  coming  catastrophe 
when  the  proud  should  be  overturned  and  the  saints 
should  rule  the  earth.  He  did  but  tell  them  that 
Christ  had  met  him  ;  that  He  had  satisfied  his  in¬ 
ward  hunger  with  the  bread  of  His  living  presence ; 
that  what  he  had  found  they  could  find  also,  for 
44  Christ  had  come  to  teach  His  people  Himself.” 
They  need  not  seek  to  find  God  through  the  words 
of  learned  divines  or  man-made  preachers  ;  for  He 
Himself  was  present  with  His  light  and  truth  in  the 
depths  of  every  human  heart,  and  would  reveal 
Himself  to  all  who  would  but  listen  and  obey. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


183 


The  sanity  and  sobriety  of  the  young  preacher, 
the  power  and  wisdom  with  which,  though  clearly 
untaught  of  men,  he  drew  forth  the  inmost  heart 
of  meaning  from  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  met  the 
arguments  of  opposers,  and  his  constant  insistence 
on  “  truth  ”  and  sincerity  and  resolute  faithfulness 
to  all  the  Divine  requirements,  drew  many  to  him, 
and  they  began  to  find  in  their  own  experience  that 
what  he  said  was  true.  They  came  for  themselves 
into  the  same  light  and  knowledge  that  made  all 
things  new.  They  did  not  believe  in  the  Light 
because  they  had  heard  of  it  from  a  preacher,  or 
read  about  it  in  a  book,  but  because  they  had 
entered  into  it  and  it  shone  upon  them. 

“  These  things  (says  Fox)  I  did  not  see  by  the 
help  of  man,  nor  by  the  letter,  though  they  are 
written  in  the  letter,  but  I  saw  them  in  the  light  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  His  immediate  Spirit 
and  power,  as  did  the  holy  men  of  God,  by  whom 
the  Holy  Scriptures  were  written.  Yet  I  had  no 
slight  esteem  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  they  were 
very  precious  to  me,  for  I  was  in  that  Spirit  by 
which  they  were  given  forth ;  and  what  the  Lord 
opened  in  me,  I  afterwards  found  was  agreeable  to 
them.”  1 

This  was  the  uniform  testimony  of  Fox’s  converts, 
that  what  they  had  found  was  not  a  new  doctrine, 
not  a  “  notion  ”  about  God  or  Christ,  not  a  theory 
of  truth,  but  the  very  truth  itself,  which  brought 
with  it  its  own  overwhelming  conviction  of  reality. 


1  Fox’s  Journal,  vol.  i.  p.  36, 


184  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


James  Nayler  was  one  of  the  earliest  to  come  under 
Fox’s  influence,  and  he  wrote  : — 

“  The  New  Man  worships  a  God  near  at  hand, 
who  dwells  in  His  Holy  Temple,  and  he  knows  Him 
inwardly  by  His  own  Word,  and  not  from  accounts 
of  others.  It  was  thus  that  the  holy  men  of  God 
always  knew  Him,  and  they  knew  themselves  to  be 
the  sons  of  God  by  the  Spirit  that  He  had  given  them. 
And  he  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit  now  has  that  same 
Spirit  dwelling  in  him  and  witnessing  in  him.  He 
knows  what  he  worships,  and  not  any  form  and 
custom,  for  he  hath  an  ear  open  to  hear  what  the 
Spirit  sayeth.”  1 

Edward  Burrough,  who  died  in  Newgate  prison  in 
1662,  at  the  age  of  twenty-eight,  wrote  as  follows  : — 

“  The  Divine  mystery  of  the  infinite  God  is  re¬ 
vealed  and  discovered  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  He 
hath  given  to  us  to  enjoy  and  possess  in  ourselves 
a  measure  of  that  fullness  which  is  in  Himself,  a 
measure  of  the  same  love,  the  same  mercy,  the  same 
Divine  nature.  We  who  are  begotten  of  Him  bear 
His  image  and  are  partakers  of  His  immortal  sub¬ 
stance  ;  and  these  things  ye  know  if  the  immortal 
birth  lives  in  you.”  2 

The  Divine  light  and  power  which  these  Mystics 
felt  in  themselves  was  no  mere  extravagance  of 
spiritual  libertinism,  making  them  fancy,  like  the 
“  Banters”  with  whom  they  were  often  confounded, 
that  they  were  independent  of  the  moral  law.  The 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  were  for  them  wholly  ethical, 
as  they  were  for  the  apostle ;  they  lived  by  the 
1  From  Works,  p.  74.  2  From  Works,  p.  698? 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


185 


Spirit  and  by  the  Spirit  also  they  “  walked  in  line.” 
George  Fox,  arraigned  before  the  magistrates  at 
Derby  in  1649,  told  them  that  it  was  Christ  in 
them  that  alone  could  sanctify  them.  “  Then  (he 
says)  they  ran  into  many  words  ;  but  I  told  them 
they  were  not  to  dispute  of  God  and  Christ ,  but  to  obey 
Him”  1 

Robert  Barclay,  in  his  Apology,  thus  describes 
what  it  was  that  made  him  a  Quaker  : — 

“When  I  came  into  the  silent  assemblies  of  God’s 
people,  I  felt  a  secret  power  among  them,  which 
touched  my  heart ;  and  as  I  gave  way  unto  it, 
I  found  the  evil  weakening  in  me  and  the  good  raised 
up,  and  so  I  became  thus  knit  and  united  unto 
them,  hungering  more  and  more  after  the  increase 
of  this  power  and  life,  whereby  I  might  feel  myself 
perfectly  redeemed.”  2 

The  ethical  “  fruits  of  the  Spirit  ”  were  abundantly 
brought  forth  in  the  lives  of  these  early  Quakers, 
and  this  was  often  unwillingly  recognised  even 
by  their  adversaries.  They  were  scarcely  ever 
charged  with  immoral  conduct,  and  in  the  few 
occasions  when  such  a  charge  was  brought  they 
had  no  difficulty  in  rebutting  it.  The  wild  doings 
of  the  “  Ranters  ”  they  consistently  condemned. 
James  Nayler’s  lapse  from  sobriety  of  action  they 
never  condoned,  and  he  himself  heartily  repented 
of  it.  The  charges  which  brought  them  heavy 
suffering,  in  the  shape  of  the  loss  of  property  and 

2  Apology ,  Prop.  xi.  section  7. 


}  Journal,  vol.  i.  p.  50. 


186  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


terrible  imprisonments,  were  for  the  most  part 
such  as  these:  of  “blasphemy”  or  “infidelity” 
(i.e.  denying  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  “  Word  of 
God  ”)  ;  of  being  Papists  in  disguise  ;  of  disloyalty 
to  the  Government  (because  they  refused  to  take  a 
judicial  oath)  ;  of  contempt  of  court  (because  they 
declined  to  remove  their  hats,  or  say  “  you  ”  to 
a  single  person).  The  courage  with  which  they 
endured,  while  never  courting,  persecution,  is 
one  of  the  finest  evidences  of  the  depth  of  their 
conviction  and  their  loyalty  to  what  “  the  Truth  ” 
required.  Their  high  standard  of  honour  became 
so  well  known  that  they  were  frequently  left  un¬ 
guarded,  or  passed  from  one  prison  to  another 
without  escort,  simply  upon  their  promise  to 
appear. 

And  the  depth  and  reality  of  their  inward  ex¬ 
perience  is  manifested  in  the  joy  that  was  with 
them  in  the  midst  of  their  sufferings.  When 
Margaret  Fell  was  in  prison  at  Lancaster,  threatened 
with  the  loss  of  all  her  property  under  the  terrible 
charge  of  premunire,  and  when  she  had  heard  that 
her  daughter  Mary  was  ill  in  London,  probably 
with  the  plague,  she  wrote  to  another  daughter  : — 

“  Keep  down  all  unworthy  anxieties.  .  .  .  Let 
not  sorrow  fill  your  hearts,  for  we  have  all  cause 
to  rejoice  in  the  Lord  evermore,  and  I  most  of 
all.” 

And  James  Nayler,  after  suffering  a  terrible 
punishment  for  his  fall  into  extravagance,  of  which 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


187 


(as  I  have  said)  he  bitterly  and  sincerely  repented, 
used  these  memorable  words  of  love  and  forgiveness 
to  his  persecutors 

“  There  is  a  spirit  which  I  feel,  that  delights  to  do 
no  evil,  nor  to  revenge  any  wrong,  but  delights 
to  endure  all  things,  in  hope  to  enjoy  its  own  in 
the  end.  Its  hope  is  to  outlive  all  wrath  and 
contention,  and  to  weary  out  all  exaltation  and 
cruelty,  or  whatever  is  of  a  nature  contrary  to 
itself.  It  sees  to  the  end  of  all  temptations  ;  as 
it  bears  no  evil  in  itself,  so  it  conceives  none  in 
thoughts  to  any  other.  If  it  be  betrayed,  it  bears 
it,  for  its  ground  and  spring  is  in  the  mercies  and 
forgiveness  of  God.  Its  crown  is  meekness,  its 
life  is  everlasting  love  unfeigned ;  it  takes  its 
kingdom  with  entreaty,  and  not  with  contention, 
and  keeps  it  with  lowliness  of  mind.”  1 

It  may  be  questioned  whether  the  spirit  of 
the  Crucified  has  ever  expressed  itself  in  nobler 
language. 

Such  are  typical  expressions,  culled  from  the 
writings  or  recorded  utterances  of  these  early 
Quakers.  With  the  exception  of  Barclay,  few 
of  them  possessed  historical  knowledge,  and  they 
did  not  know  that  their  affirmation  of  the  im¬ 
mediate  presence  and  light  in  their  souls  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  but  a  repetition,  in  other  terms, 
of  much  that  had  been  expressed  before  them  by 
the  early  Reformers  and  even  by  many  of  the 
Catholic  Mystics.  I  do  not  forget  that  the  note 

1  Works,  p.  696, 


188  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  mysticism,  expressing  the  consciousness  of  the 
welling-up  in  the  soul  of  first-hand  experience 
of  the  presence  and  power  of  God,  was  strong  in 
the  Reformation,  as  it  was  in  primitive  Christi¬ 
anity  ;  but  it  had  been  well-nigh  lost,  in  a  desert 
of  scholasticism,  by  the  Puritan  divines  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  It  was  not  wonderful,  there¬ 
fore,  that  the  early  Quakers  regarded  it  as  a  new 
revelation  to  themselves,  or  rather  a  recovery  of 
the  essential  revelation  which  genuine  Christi¬ 
anity  is. 

Two  things,  however,  marked  them  off  from  the 
early  Reformers.  In  the  first  place,  they  were 
prepared  to  trust  this  immediate  revelation,  wrought 
by  Christ  Himself  in  the  soul,  further  than  Luther 
and  his  contemporaries  had  ever  dreamed  of  trust¬ 
ing  it.  George  Fox  was  prepared  to  rest  upon  it 
his  whole  Church  polity.  A  mediating  priesthood 
he,  of  course,  rejected  ;  but  he  threw  overboard 
with  it  the  whole  function  of  a  trained  and  separated 
ministry.  This  revolutionised  public  worship  ;  but 
the  revolution,  Fox  claimed,  was  simply  a  reversion 
to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church  at  Corinth. 
The  “  Children  of  the  Light,”  who  gathered  around 
him,  began  their  meetings  with  silent  waiting  upon 
God,  giving  freedom  for  such  vocal  exercises  of 
prayer  or  praise,  testimony  or  exhortation,  as  His 
living  Spirit  might  call  forth  from  any  true 
worshipper,  man  or  woman.  This  practice  has 
continued  in  the  Society  of  Friends  for  250  years, 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


189 


and  is  probably  the  most  distinctive  feature  of 
their  life.  There  is  no  sign  at  present,  in  this 
country  at  least,  of  any  desire  to  abandon  it. 
It  naturally  aroused  fierce  opposition  from  those 
who  could  not  believe  that  such  a  method  of  worship 
could  possibly  tend  to  order  or  edification,  and 
especially  from  the  less  worthy  preachers  who 
were  threatened,  if  the  new  teaching  spread,  with 
the  loss  of  influence  and  even  of  the  means  of 
living. 

All  special  forms  of  worship  being  needless,  it 
was  natural  that  the  so-called  Sacraments  were 
abandoned  with  the  rest.  The  Quakers  could 
never  believe  that  their  Master,  Jesus  Christ,  with 
whom  the  Spirit  was  everything,  and  who  taught 
that  man  is  not  defiled  (and  therefore  not  cleansed) 
by  anything  of  an  outward  nature,  would  ever 
have  established  binding  ceremonies  as  an  essen¬ 
tial  part  of  His  religion.  The  passages  in  which 
tradition  asserted  that  He  had  done  so,  they  ex¬ 
plained  away  ;  and  these  are,  remarkably  enough, 
among  the  first  that  modern  historical  criticism 
has  rendered  of  doubtful  authenticity.  But  their 
rejection  of  Sacraments  was  not  a  mere  negation  ; 
it  was  because  they  felt  themselves  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  cleansed  with  the  water  of 
life,  and  because  they  had  entered  into  the  true 
communion  of  the  death  of  Christ,  that  they  felt 
the  outward  forms  to  be  a  needless  encumbrance. 

The  second  point  in  which  they  went  far  beyond 


190  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


the  early  Reformers  was  in  their  constant  and 
uniform  declaration  that  the  Light  and  revelation 
of  the  Spirit  was  not  the  privilege  of  the  few,  but 
was  granted  in  some  degree  to  every  child  of  man. 
This  it  was,  more  than  anything  else,  that  brought 
down  upon  them  the  wrath  of  the  orthodox,  not 
alone  the  dry  traditionalists,  but  men  of  saintly 
life  like  Bunyan  and  Baxter.  These  could  not 
conceive  how  any  who  claimed  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  was  in  all  men  had  a  right  to  the  name  Evan¬ 
gelical,  or  even  Christian.  It  is  worth  some  study, 
therefore,  to  ascertain  how  such  a  belief  was  re¬ 
conciled  with  the  deep  and  genuine  Evangelical 
experience  that  the  Quakers  undoubtedly  pos¬ 
sessed  ;  but  first  it  may  be  well  to  make  good  the 
assertion  that  this  is  what  they  really  taught  and 
meant,  and  also  to  examine  what  fruits  it  brought 
forth  in  their  lives. 

William  Penn  says  of  Fox  : — 

“  In  his  testimony  or  ministry,  he  much  laboured 
to  open  truth  to  the  people’s  understandings,  and 
to  bottom  them  upon  the  principle  and  principal, 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Light  of  the  world,  that  by  bring¬ 
ing  them  to  something  of  God  in  themselves,  they 
might  the  better  know  and  judge  of  Him  and 
themselves.” 1 

Fox  says  himself  : — 

“  Now  the  Lord  opened  to  me  by  His  invisible 
power,  that  every  man  was  enlightened  by  the 

1  Preface  to  George  Fox’s  J ournal ,  p.  xlvii. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


191 


divine  light  of  Christ  ;  and  I  saw  it  shine  through 
all ;  and  that  they  that  believed  in  it  came  out  of 
condemnation  into  the  light  of  life,  and  became  the 
children  of  it ;  but  they  that  hated  it,  and  did  not 
believe  in  it,  were  condemned  by  it,  though  they 
made  a  profession  of  Christ.”  1 

And  Robert  Barclay  sums  up  the  whole  of  the 
early  Quaker  preaching  in  these  words  : — 

“  Glory  to  God  for  ever  !  who  hath  chosen  us 
as  first-fruits  to  Himself  in  this  day,  wherein  He  is 
arisen  to  plead  with  the  nations  ;  and  therefore  hath 
sent  us  forth  to  preach  His  everlasting  Gospel  unto 
all,  Christ  nigh  to  all,  the  light  in  all,  the  seed 
sown  in  the  hearts  of  all,  that  men  may  come  and 
apply  their  minds  to  it.”  2 

A  typical  example  of  Fox’s  teaching  is  the  story 
in  his  Journal  of  his  visit  to  Carolina,  where  a 
“  doctor  ”  disputed  with  him  as  to  the  light  that  is 
in  every  man,  asserting  that  it  was  not  in  the 
Indians.  Fox  thereupon  called  an  Indian,  and 
asked  whether  or  not,  when  he  lied,  or  did  wrong 
to  any  one,  there  was  not  something  in  him  that 
reproved  him  for  it  ?  To  which  the  Indian  replied 
that  “  there  was  such  a  thing  in  him  that  did  so 
reprove  him  ;  and  he  was  ashamed  when  he  had 
done  wrong  or  spoken  wrong.”  “And  so,”  adds 
Fox,  “  we  shamed  the  doctor  before  the  governor 
and  the  people.”  3 

It  will  be  seen  that  Fox  here  adduces  the  “  natural 

1  Journal ,  vol.  i.  p.  34.  2  Apology,  Prop,  vi.,  section  24. 

8  Journal,  vol.  ii.  p.  185. 


192 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


conscience  55  of  man  as  evidence  that  there  is  some¬ 
thing  of  God  in  him — a  44  light,55  as  he  would  call  it, 
or,  to  use  another  favourite  expression,  a  Divine 
“  seed.55  For  a  reason  which  I  will  explain  presently, 
he  and  his  friends  declined  to  identify  the  44  natural 
conscience  55  with  the  44  seed  of  God 55 ;  but  they 
constantly  appealed  to  it  as  witnessing  to  the  truth 
of  their  contention. 

This  belief  in  the  universality  of  the  44  saving 
Light 55  (as  Barclay  calls  it)  in  the  human  soul 
being,  then,  a  fundamental  part  of  their  message, 
we  have  next  to  investigate  the  fruit  which  it  bore 
in  their  lives  and  conduct.  Did  it  make  them 
selfishly  indifferent  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  others, 
engendering  in  them  the  comforting  delusion  that 
God  was  doing  all  that  was  necessary,  and  that 
therefore  they  need  do  nothing  ?  On  the  contrary, 
none  in  their  day,  it  may  safely  be  said,  were  more 
fervent  missionaries  than  they.  Fox  might  truly 
have  used  of  himself  the  words  of  the  great  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles :  44  In  labours  more  abundantly,  in 
prisons  more  abundantly,  in  stripes  above  measure, 
in  deaths  oft ;  in  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of 
rivers,  in  perils  in  the  sea,  in  perils  among  false 
brethren  ;  in  labour  and  travail,  in  hunger  and  thirst, 
in  fastings  often,  in  cold  and  nakedness.55  And  he 
gathered  about  him,  largely  from  the  fells  of 
Westmorland,  a  band  of  young  preachers  who  went 
over  the  length  and  breadth  of  these  islands  calling 
men  to  recognise  and  obey  their  inward  Teacher. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


193 


And  more  than  that,  some  of  them  heard  and  obeyed 
the  call  to  carry  the  same  message  to  the  far-off 
colonies,  to  Indian  savages,  to  Jews  and  Turks  and 
pagans.  Some  of  these  Quaker  missionaries  were 
frail  women,  who  faced  without  flinching  the  terrors 
of  the  pirate-infested  ocean,  to  tell  Jews  and  Moslems 
that  the  Christ  they  did  not  recognise  was  near 
them,  and  to  bid  them  hearken  to  His  voice. 

Was  the  missionary  impulse  thus  strong  within 
them  in  defiance  of  their  conviction  that  the  Light 
was  in  every  man  ?  On  the  contrary,  it  was  just 
this  conviction  that  gave  it  force  and  hope  and 
radiant  confidence.  For  they  knew  that,  wherever 
they  went,  the  Spirit  of  God  had  gone  before  them, 
and  would  witness  in  the  hearts  of  their  hearers 
that  what  they  said  was  true.  They  knew  that  they 
had  something  to  appeal  to,  even  in  the  souls  of  the 
most  apparently  degraded,  and  they  did  not  appeal 
in  vain. 

Moreover,  it  was  this  conviction  of  the  “  seed  of 
God  ”  in  all  men  that  made  them  pioneers  of  social 
justice  between  man  and  man.  They  could  not 
bear  to  see  the  Divine  image  in  the  human  soul 
defaced  and  degraded  by  “  the  wrong  of  man  to 
man.”  As  Whittier  wrote  of  Joseph  Sturge — 

“  He  in  the  vilest  saw 

Some  sacred  crypt  or  altar  of  a  temple 
Still  vocal  with  God’s  law.” 

It  was  no  accident  that  associated  “  philanthropy  ” 
with  their  creed.  Very  early  in  his  ministry,  Fox 

13 


194  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


tells  us,  he  went  to  the  justices  at  Mansfield,  who 
were  met,  in  accordance  with  the  “  Statute  of 
Apprentices,”  to  fix  the  rate  of  wages  in  their 
district,  pleading  with  them  “not  to  oppress  the 
servants  in  their  wages,  hut  to  do  that  which  was 
right  and  just  to  them.”  1  “  I  was  sorely  exercised,” 

he  says,  “  in  going  to  their  courts  to  cry  for  justice, 
and  in  speaking  and  writing  to  judges  and  justices 
to  do  justly  ;  in  warning  such  as  kept  public-houses 
for  entertainment,  that  they  should  not  let  people 
have  more  drink  than  would  do  them  good.  .  .  . 
In  fairs,  also,  and  in  markets,  I  was  made  to  declare 
against  their  deceitful  merchandise,  cheating,  and 
cozening  ;  warning  all  to  do  justly,  to  speak  the 
truth,  to  let  their  yea  be  yea,  and  their  nay  be  nay  ; 
and  to  do  unto  others  as  they  would  have  others  do 
unto  them.”  2  In  Cornwall  he  publicly  protested 
against  the  inhuman  practice  of  “  wrecking  ”  ; 3 
and,  in  the  West  Indies,  he  pleaded  with  the  slave¬ 
owners  to  use  their  blacks  with  tenderness,  to  train 
them  up  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  after  some  years 
of  servitude  to  set  them  free.4  He  does  not  seem 
to  have  perceived  that  slavery  was  necessarily 
wrong  in  itself  ;  but  his  companion  in  the  island 
of  Barbadoes,  William  Edmundson,  did  take  that 
position,  and  was  promptly  arrested  by  the  Governor 
on  the  charge  of  inciting  the  negroes  to  rebellion. 
Earlier  than  that  Fox  “  was  moved  to  write  to  the 


1  Journal,  vol.  i.  p.  27. 

8  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  458-461. 


2  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  39. 

4  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  149. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


195 


justices  concerning  their  putting  men  to  death  for 
cattle,  and  money,  and  small  matters  ”  ;  and  he 
“  laid  before  the  judges  what  a  hurtful  thing  it  was 
that  prisoners  should  lie  so  long  in  jail ;  showing 
how  they  learned  wickedness  one  of  another  in 
talking  of  their  bad  deeds.”  1 

It  was  the  same  sense  of  the  worth  of  mankind, 
and  of  the  all-inclusiveness  of  the  law  of  love,  that 
led  to  the  protest  against  War  which  his  followers 
have  always  maintained.  This  protest  was  not  the 
outcome  merely  of  a  literal  interpretation  of  passages 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  In  1651,  just  before 
the  battle  of  Worcester,  some  people  offered  to 
make  George  Fox  a  captain  in  the  parliamentary 
army.  “  But,”  he  says,  “  I  told  them  I  knew 
from  whence  all  wars  arose,  even  from  the  lust, 
according  to  James’s  doctrine  ;  and  that  I  lived 
in  the  virtue  of  that  life  and  power  that  took 
away  the  occasion  of  all  wars.”  2  He  saw  that 
the  true  defences  of  a  nation  are  not  material 
but  moral — that  they  are  to  be  found  in  justice 
and  love,  in  freedom  and  contentment,  in  right 
dealing  between  man  and  man.  Moreover,  it 
was  felt  that  military  discipline,  which  neces¬ 
sarily  requires  unconditional  obedience  to  human 
authority,  may  come  into  inevitable  conflict  with 
the  only  unconditional  obedience  a  human  soul 
ought  to  render — to  the  authority  of  the  Christ 
within. 

1  Journal ,  vol.  i.  pp.  70,  71.  2  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  68, ; 


196  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Such,  then,  were  the  moral  fruits  of  the  belief 
of  the  Quakers  in  the  universality  of  the  Divine 
Light  in  the  soul  of  man.  Against  this  affirmation 
the  very  obvious  objection  was  raised  at  once,  as 
it  has  been  often  since  their  day :  “If  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  in  all  men,  what  need  is  there  of  Revela¬ 
tion  or  Redemption ;  of  the  Bible,  or  of  the  saving 
work  of  Jesus  Christ  on  earth  ?  What  place  is 
left  for  the  Evangelical  experience  of  conversion 
and  of  justification  by  faith  alone  ?  55  Their  answer 
was  not  always  clear ;  but  it  may  be  noted  at 
once  that  they  always  drew  a  very  sharp  dis¬ 
tinction  between  having  the  Light  of  Christ  and 
living  in  it  in  sincere  obedience.  The  learned 
Samuel  Fisher,  in  his  prodigious  Apologia  Eusticus 
ad  Academicos,  thus  expresses  it  : — 

“  How  often  shall  we  need  to  tell  you,  ye  blind 
and  deaf,  that  to  have  the  Light  shining  in  one 
is  one  thing  ;  to  be  in  it,  in  a  state  of  light,  and 
the  children  of  it,  is  another  ?  To  have  the  Gospel 
preached  in  men  is  one  thing ;  for  men  to  learn  the 
mystery  of  it  is  another.” 

The  Quakers  met  the  challenge  with  the  J ohannine 
thought  that  while  Christ  was  indeed  the  Light 
that  lighteth  every  man,  yet  it  is  only  he  that 
“  doeth  the  truth,”  that  “  cometh  to  the  Light, 
that  his  works  may  be  made  manifest  that  they  have 
been  wrought  in  God  ”  (John  iii.  21).  While  all 
are  “  taught  of  God,”  it  is  only  he  “  that  hath 
heard  from  the  Father  and  hath  learned  ”  who 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


197 


“  cometh  unto  Me  ”  (John  vi.  45).  They  never 
denied  or  undervalued  the  outward  work  of  Christ ; 
but  they  strenuously  maintained  that  salvation 
was  not  to  be  known  by  mere  intellectual  acceptance 
either  of  the  facts  or  of  the  doctrines  based  upon 
them,  but  by  opening  the  soul  to  the  inward  work 
of  cleansing  and  renewal.  “  Concerning  the  Person 
of  Christ,”  Isaac  Penington  wrote,  in  rebutting 
the  charges  of  heresy  on  which  four  Quakers  (in¬ 
cluding  a  woman)  had  been  put  to  death  on  Boston 
Common  : — 

“  They  (the  Quakers)  believe  that  Christ  is  the 
eternal  light,  life,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  which 
was  manifested  in  that  body  of  flesh  which  he  took 
of  the  virgin ;  that  he  is  the  king,  priest,  and 
prophet  of  his  people,  and  saveth  them  from  their 
sins  by  laying  down  his  life  for  them  and  imputing 
his  righteousness  to  them ;  yet  not  without  revealing 
and  bringing  forth  the  same  righteousness  in  them 
which  he  wrought  for  them.  And  by  experience 
they  know  that  there  is  no  being  saved  by  a  belief 
of  his  death  for  them,  and  of  his  resurrection, 
ascension,  intercession,  etc.,  without  being  brought 
into  true  fellowship  with  him  in  his  death,  and 
without  feeling  his  immortal  seed  of  life  raised  and 
living  in  them.  And  so  they  disown  the  faith  in 
Christ’s  death  which  is  only  received  and  enter¬ 
tained  from  the  relation  of  the  letter  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  stands  not  in  the  divine  power,  and  sensible 
experience,  of  the  begotten  of  God  in  the  heart.”  1 

This  passage  is  quite  typical  of  the  position  taken 
by  the  early  Quakers.  They  accepted  with  entire 

1  Isaac  Penington’s  Works ,  vol.  i.  p.  360. 


198  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


sincerity  and  simplicity  the  great  assertion  that 
“  the  Word  became  flesh,”  and  found  no  more 
difficulty  than  did  the  fourth  Evangelist  in  iden¬ 
tifying  the  eternal  Christ  of  experience  with  the 
Jesus  of  history.  In  that  radiant  personality 
they  recognised,  if  I  may  so  express  it,  that  the 
diffused  light  which  had  always  visited  the  souls 
of  men  had  been  focused  in  one  clear  beam  ;  and 
so  they  never  hesitated  to  speak  of  the  “  Christ  ” 
in  all  men.  This  I  believe  to  be  the  secret  of  their 
union  of  breadth  and  universality  of  outlook  with 
fundamental  Christian  orthodoxy,  of  mysticism 
with  evangelicalism — a  union  which  is  nowhere 
more  conspicuous  than  in  the  writings  of  Paul  and 
John,  the  inner  spirit  of  which  they  seem  to  have 
recovered,  not  from  the  study  of  either  the  mystics 
or  the  early  reformers,  but  through  the  intense 
personal  experience  of  their  leader  Fox. 

And  yet  it  would,  in  my  view,  be  too  much  to 
claim  that  they  succeeded  in  fully  and  completely 
reconciling  the  mystical  and  the  evangelical  posi¬ 
tions.  Like  most  of  the  Christian  mystics,  they 
believed  themselves  to  be  in  line  with  historical  and 
orthodox  Christianity  ;  but,  if  we  ask  where  exactly 
did  they  find  the  ultimate  seat  of  authority,  we 
shall  discover  that  they  speak  with  two  voices.  In 
the  early  days  they  unhesitatingly  asserted  that  it 
was  within  and  not  without,  in  the  Christian  con¬ 
sciousness  and  not  in  church  or  book.  And  yet, 
when  their  position  was  attacked  by  the  orthodox, 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


199 


and  when  they  were  compelled  to  defend  it,  they 
fell  back  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Light  within, 
if  followed  faithfully,  would  inevitably  lead  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  traditional  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
including  the  virtual  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures. 
Witness  George  Fox’s  celebrated  letter  to  the 
Governor  of  Barbadoes.1  What  I  am  convinced 
they  were  feeling  after  was  a  conception  of  authority 
which  finds  its  seat  in  the  continuous  and  corporate 
illumination  of  the  Christian  consciousness  ;  but 
this  conception  they  were  never  able  to  grasp 
securely.  Robert  Barclay  probed  the  question  more 
deeply  than  any  one  else ;  but  even  he  concludes  his 
examination  with  the  unsatisfying  declaration  that 
the  spirit  is  the  primary  “rule  ”  of  faith  and  practice. 
If  we  ask  how  the  “  rule  ”  is  to  be  applied,  to 
determine  particular  questions  as  they  arise,  the  only 
logical  answer  would  seem  to  be,  by  our  own  inward 
and  therefore  private  and  individual  illumination, 
which  makes  each  one,  so  far  as  he  follows  the  Spirit, 
an  infallible  oracle  of  Divine  truth.  This  position 
Penington  avowedly  held.  “Every  way  of  it  (the 
Light),”  he  says,  “  is  infallible,  and  every  step 
of  the  creature  after  it  is  infallible.”  2  Barclay 
is  more  cautious,  and  he  keeps  in  mind  the  doings 
of  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster,  who  professed  this 
infallible  illumination.  But,  when  he  is  pressed 

1  Journal,  vol.  ii.  p.  155. 

2  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  8 ;  also  vol.  iii.  p.  194  : 
mis-saw  in  it,”  etc. 


“  Mine  eye  never 


200  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


to  answer  what  is  to  decide  when  Christians  who 
profess  infallible  guidance  disagree,  he  can  only 
answer,  “  The  Scriptures.”  He  writes: — 

“  Moreover,  because  they  (the  Scriptures)  are 
commonly  acknowledged  by  all  to  have  been  written 
by  the  dictates  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  the  errors 
which  may  be  supposed  by  the  injury  of  time  to 
have  slipped  in,  are  not  such  but  that  there  is 
sufficient  clear  testimony  left  to  all  the  essentials 
of  the  Christian  faith  ;  we  do  look  upon  them  as 
the  only  fit  outward  judge  of  controversies  among 
Christians  ;  and  that  whatsoever  doctrine  is  con¬ 
trary  unto  their  testimony  may  therefore  justly  be 
regarded  as  false.”  1 

Now,  if  we  try  to  follow  up  to  its  source  this  dual 
position — the  confusion  of  thought  common  to 
Barclay  and  to  many  of  the  early  Reformers,  by 
which  they  made  the  Spirit  the  witness  to  Scripture, 
and  Scripture  the  judge  between  differing  findings 
of  the  Spirit — we  shall  see  that  it  arose  in  a  dualism 
in  the  thought  of  the  seventeenth  century,  which 
the  Quakers,  with  all  the  light  that  undoubtedly 
came  to  them,  never  succeeded  in  transcending. 

Seventeenth  -  century  thought,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  Cambridge  Platonists,  moved  in 
an  atmosphere  of  dualism.  The  “  natural  ”  world 
was  sharply  divided  from  the  “  spiritual,”  the  human 
from  the  Divine.  The  world  of  experience  was 
separated  into  these  water-tight  compartments  of 
thought,  and  its  contents  never  intermingled. 


1  Apology,  Prop.  iii.  section  6. 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


201 


Moreover,  for  the  Quakers  no  less  than  for  their 
more  orthodox  opponents,  the  world  of  “  nature  ” 
and  of  human  life  had  been  wholly  ruined  by  the 
Fall  of  Man.  Man  himself  was  totally  depraved, 
incapable  in  himself  of  a  right  thought  or  any  effort 
after  God.  He  moved  in  an  undivine  natural 
world,  which  the  Divine  and  spiritual  might  shine 
upon  and  save,  but  from  which  it  was  wholly 
separated.  The  conception  of  the  Divine  imman¬ 
ence,  which  is  so  strong  in  some  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,  Puritanism  seems  to  have  wholly  lost. 
The  Quakers  had  recovered  the  Divine  immanence, 
but  they  tried  vainly  to  express  it  in  the  terms 
of  dualism. 

It  was  by  means  of  such  a  framework  of  thought 
that  the  early  Quakers  endeavoured  to  account  for 
the  inward  experience  that  for  them  had  made  all 
things  new.  The  Light  they  had  rediscovered  they 
must  make  wholly  human  and  natural,  or  else  wholly 
Divine  and  spiritual.  The  former  alternative  landed 
them  in  the  conclusion  that  man  needed  no  saving 
grace  of  God  ;  and  from  this  they  recoiled  with 
horror.  They  found  themselves,  therefore,  shut  up 
in  the  other  alternative  ; 1  and  it  is  to  this  fact,  I 
believe,  more  than  to  any  other  cause,  that  their 
subsequent  failure  and  declension  as  a  people  must 
be  traced. 

1  This  is  why  they  refused  to  identify  the  Light  of  the  Spirit 
with  the  “  natural  ”  conscience  of  man  ;  but  they  never  clearly 
explained  the  relation  between  the  two. 


202  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


The  logic  of  their  position  undoubtedly  was  that, 
the  Light  within  them  being  wholly  Divine  and 
non-human,  each  individual,  so  far  as  he  followed  it, 
became  an  infallible  oracle  of  truth,  just  such  as 
they  imagined  the  writers  of  the  Scriptures  to  have 
been.  And,  further,  the  power  that  they  felt  work¬ 
ing  in  them  being  regarded  as  wholly  transcendental 
and  supernatural,  it  followed  that  it  was  only  as 
“  the  creature  5  5  and  all  his  works  were  laid  in  the 
dust  that  it  could  have  free  play  in  their  lives.  Isaac 
Penington  pathetically  writes  to  his  wife  to  tell 
her  how  their  little  son  came  into  his  bed  one  morning 
early,  and  how  fearful  he  was  lest  his  delight  in  the 
child’s  sweet  innocent  playfulness  should  ensnare 
him  in  “natural  ”  affections.  The  ascetic  impulse, 
which  a  dualistic  theory  has  usually  aroused  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  take  religion  seriously,  tended 
in  the  Quakers,  as  it  has  often  done  in  other  mystics, 
to  aesthetic  and  intellectual  poverty.  They  became 
afraid  to  use  their  minds,  at  least  in  relation  to  the 
things  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  mind  for  them  was 
natural  and  not  Divine. 

It  is,  I  am  convinced,  to  this  source,  rather 
than  to  any  inherent  mistake  in  the  system  itself, 
that  we  must  trace  the  large  measure  of  failure 
that  attended  their  experiment  of  a  free  and  wholly 
non-professional  ministry.  In  Divine  worship  the 
ideal  came  to  be  that  men  and  women  must  cease 
to  think,  in  order  that  their  souls  might  be  like 
“  a  blank  sheet  of  paper  ”  on  which  the  Spirit 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


203 


might  write  His  Divine  oracles.  As  I  have  said 
elsewhere  : 1 — 

“  This  brought  forward,  in  public  ministry, 
persons  of  a  certain  psychical  temperament,  whose 
sub-conscious  life,  lying  near  the  surface,  was  readily 
brought  into  play  ;  and  it  kept  in  the  background 
those  who,  little  subject  to  these  mysterious  move¬ 
ments,  were  more  accustomed  to  the  conscious  use 
of  their  minds.  Hence  the  ministry  tended  to 
become  rhapsodical ;  and,  while  it  not  infrequently 
searched  in  a  wonderful  manner  the  hidden  depths 
of  the  hearers’  hearts,  it  appealed  but  little  to  their 
minds.” 

The  lamentable  shrinkage  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  from  the  opening  of  the  eighteenth  century 
to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  is  due,  in  my  judg¬ 
ment,  not  to  any  inherent  weakness  in  its  method 
of  free,  or  lay,  ministry,  or  its  disuse  of  outward 
forms  in  worship,  but  mainly  to  its  almost  entire 
failure  to  recognise  the  necessity  of  religious  teach¬ 
ing.  The  idea  came  to  prevail  that  all  the  teaching 
that  was  required  would  be  supernaturally  supplied, 
and  no  adequate  steps  were  taken  to  make  provision 
for  it.  George  Fox’s  “  opening,”  or  intuition, 
“  that  being  bred  at  Oxford  or  Cambridge  was  not 
enough  to  fit  and  qualify  men  to  be  ministers  of 
Christ  ”  2  was  so  interpreted  as  virtually  to  put  a 
premium  on  human  ignorance  ;  and  no  means  were 
provided  for  securing  a  succession  of  the  able 
leaders  who  did  so  much  to  spread  the  new  “way 

1  Authority  and  the  Light  Within,  p.  85.  2  Journal ,  vol.  i.  p.  7. 


204  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  life 55  in  the  seventeenth  century.  Hence  the 
worship  of  the  Friends  failed  to  satisfy  and  build 
up  the  more  active  spirits  among  their  own  members, 
and  still  more  to  draw  in  seekers  after  God  from  the 
world  around. 

The  fact  that,  in  spite  of  these  weaknesses,  the 
Society  of  Friends  has  survived  for  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  and  has  not  only  produced  a  type  of 
character  which  the  world  could  ill  spare,  but  has 
done  something  to  leaven  humanity  with  a  higher 
spirit  of  truthfulness  and  brotherhood  and  respect 
for  freedom  of  conscience,  is  to  my  own  mind  a  very 
powerful  evidence  of  the  depth  and  reality  of  their 
Evangelical  experience,  and  of  the  worth  of  their 
witness  to  the  inward  and  spiritual  nature  of  true 
Christianity.  It  is  surely  not  too  much  to  hope 
that,  when  we  clearly  discern  the  causes  of  our 
weakness,  and  recognise  that  the  great  experiment 
of  a  purely  lay  ministry  can  only  succeed  when  there 
is  impressed  upon  all  our  members  the  need,  not 
alone  for  a  deep  personal  experience,  but  for  sound 
knowledge  of  the  Bible  and  religious  history — and 
when  the  means  are  provided  by  which  this  know¬ 
ledge  can  be  acquired,  that  a  supply  of  instructed 
leaders  may  be  forthcoming — we  may  yet  have  a 
living  message  for  the  world,  and  offer  some  real 
help  in  establishing  the  Church  of  the  future, — a 
Church  which,  as  has  been  well  said,  will  be  “  not 
an  institution  but  a  fellowship.” 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


205 


There  are,  happily,  many  signs  among  us  of  new 
life,  particularly  among  our  younger  members. 
While  many  religious  bodies  are  lamenting  a  decline 
in  membership,  the  Society  of  Friends  in  Great 
Britain  has  experienced  for  some  four  decades  a 
slow  but  steady  increase,  which  shows  no  sign  at 
present  of  giving  way.  The  notable  Adult  School 
movement,  which  was  begun  by  Friends  and  is 
still  largely  under  their  influence  and  guided  by 
their  ideals,  is  making  an  important  contribution 
to  Christian  democracy,  and  is  bringing  social 
classes  together  in  mutual  instruction  in  Christian 
principles  and  their  application.  The  need  for 
religious  instruction  among  our  own  membership 
has  been  largely  recognised,  and  is  being  met  by 
the  establishment  of  settlements  at  Woodbrooke 
and  elsewhere,  by  frequent  summer  schools  for 
religious  and  social  study,  and  by  different  organisa¬ 
tions  which  provide  local  lectures  and  encourage 
the  promotion  of  study  circles.  And  one  of  the 
most  hopeful  features  of  the  present  time  is  a  great 
awakening  among  our  younger  members  to  the 
meaning  and  value  of  the  heritage  that  has  come 
to  them  as  Friends,  and  to  the  responsibility  it  lays 
upon  them  to  understand  better  what  their  Society 
stands  for,  and  to  make  known  its  message  to  the 
world.  At  the  same  time  the  work  of  foreign 
missions  has  been  taken  up  with  vigour,  and  our 
Foreign  Mission  Association  is  supporting  in  five 
fields  of  service  about  one  hundred  missionaries — 


206  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


a  larger  proportion  to  the  total  membership,  I 
believe,  than  is  shown  by  any  other  religious  body 
in  this  country,  unless  it  be  the  Moravians. 

I  mention  these  facts,  not  with  any  sense  of 
satisfaction,  but  to  remove,  if  possible,  the  idea, 
which  is  often  met  with,  that  the  Society  of  Friends 
is  on  the  point  of  extinction  and  has  finished  its 
work  for  the  world.  That  work  may,  perhaps,  be 
described  as  its  witness  that  the  power  of  the 
deepest  Evangelical  experience,  whether  in  the 
individual  consciousness  or  in  the  fellowship  which 
constitutes  the  Church,  may  be  known  in  its  full 
vitality  with  the  simplest  of  all  possible  organisa¬ 
tions — without  a  formal  creed,  without  set  forms 
of  worship,  without  any  outward  sacraments, 
without  even  a  separated  ministry.  The  Society 
of  Friends  has  proved  that  wherever  even  two  or 
three  genuine  disciples  of  Christ  can  get  together — 
in  a  private  drawing-room,  in  a  log-cabin  in  the 
backwoods,  far  away  from  the  ordinary  “  means 
of  grace  ” — there  a  true  Church  can  be  formed,  as 
in  the  earliest  days  of  Christianity,  and  genuine 
Christian  worship  be  carried  on,  to  the  deepening 
and  enriching  of  the  worshippers’  own  lives  and 
the  help  of  those  around  them,  without  waiting 
for  any  ordained  minister  to  come  and  conduct 
their  “  service.” 

The  fact  that  such  simple  worship  can  be  con¬ 
ducted  in  real  life  and  power,  in  order  and  to  edi¬ 
fication,  producing  practical  fruits  of  righteousness 


THE  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS 


207 


and  public  service  in  the  lives  of  those  who  are 
inspired  by  it,  is  surely  no  useless  testimony  to  the 
reality  of  the  presence  of  God  in  the  world,  to  the 
actual  guidance  of  the  living  Spirit  of  Christ  our 
Lord. 

At  the  last  meeting  of  the  Church  Congress,  at 
Cambridge,  Dr.  Gore,  then  Bishop  of  Birmingham, 
made  a  noteworthy  admission.  “  He  did  not  see,” 
he  said,  “  the  manifold  fruits  of  the  Spirit  more 
markedly  than  among  the  Quakers,  who  had  neither 
orders  nor  sacraments.”  Without  assuming  that  we 
deserve  such  a  tribute,  the  fact  that  it  could  be 
offered  by  an  Anglican  bishop  is,  perhaps,  the 
best  evidence  that  our  “  witness  to  Evangelical 
Christianity  ”  has  not  been  altogether  in  vain. 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 

BY 


A.  S.  PEAKE,  D.D. 


Methodism  largely  a  reflection  of  John  Wesley’s  experience  and 
character — The  conditions  in  England  at  the  time  of  the 
Methodist  revival — The  antecedents  of  Wesley’s  con¬ 
version — The  nature  of  that  experience — The  change  in 
emphasis  which  it  involved — The  subordination  of  every¬ 
thing  to  the  work  of  rescuing  the  lost — The  advance  of 
Methodism — Secessions  and  other  movements — Statistics 
of  Methodism  at  the  present  day — Wesley’s  theology — 
His  acceptance  of  the  great  Catholic  doctrines — Universal 
depravity — Universal  redemption — The  Methodist  hymns 
the  best  expression  of  the  typical  Methodist  experience — 
Conversion  as  a  crisis — The  doctrine  of  Assurance — The 
sense  of  ecstasy — The  prudential  element  in  the  appeal 
to  the  unconverted  —  The  stress  on  future  punishment 
—  Abnormal  physical  and  psychical  manifestations  — 
Methodism  as  an  emotional  religion — Entire  sanctification 
— The  organisation — Methodism  forced  into  separation 
from  the  Anglican  Church  by  the  logic  of  the  situation — 
The  class  meeting — Value  of  the  training  in  extempore 
speech — Methodism  non-legalist  and  non-sacramentarian, 
Catholic  and  evangelical — Sketch  of  its  leading  char¬ 
acteristics. 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES  1 


In  any  attempt  to  interpret  the  genius  of  Metho¬ 
dism  a  very  prominent  place  must  be  accorded 
to  the  character  and  experience  of  its  founder. 
The  impress  of  his  personality  is  indelibly  stamped 
upon  it.  His  experience  has  been  typical  for  it, 
his  strength  and  his  weakness,  his  breadth  and 
his  limitations  are  reflected  in  it.  Methodism  has, 
indeed,  been  moulded  by  many  another  influence — 
the  pressure  of  circumstances,  the  spiritual  and 
intellectual  atmosphere,  the  need  of  continuous 
adjustment  to  changing  conditions  and  new  de¬ 
mands.  But  through  a  great  part  of  its  history 


1  This  is  not  the  lecture  actually  delivered,  but  a  substitute  for 
it.  I  was  not  aware  of  the  intention  to  publish,  and  therefore 
had  not  written.  The  lecture  as  printed  includes  substantially, 
I  believe,  most  of  what  I  said,  but  as  an  extempore  address  is 
naturally  more  diffuse  than  a  written,  I  have  been  able  to  pack 
my  matter  in  a  tighter  space  and  add  a  good  deal  that  time  did 
not  permit  me  to  include.  I  owe  special  thanks  to  my  esteemed 
friend  Dr.  Simon,  the  Governor  of  Didsbury  College,  for  his  kindness 
in  reading  the  manuscript  and  out  of  his  wealth  of  expert  knowledge 
making  some  most  helpful  criticisms  and  suggestions.  I  have 
given  effect  to  these,  but  he  must  not  be  held  responsible  either  for 
the  views  put  forward  or  the  way  in  which  they  are  expressed. 
But  though  he  would  have  put  some  things  differently,  I  think 
he  would  be  in  cordial  sympathy  with  the  main  lines  of  my 
presentation. 

211 


212  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


it  has  not  been  distinguished  for  its  mobility.  It 
has  prized  loyalty  to  itself  more  than  swift  reaction 
to  its  environment.  Recent  years  have,  I  think, 
seen  a  marked  change  in  this  respect.  But  through 
a  long  period  of  its  career  it  remained  predomi¬ 
nantly  self-centred  in  its  interests,  believing  that 
thus  it  could  best  fulfil  the  great  mission  entrusted 
to  it.  To  build  on  the  foundation  already  laid ; 
jealously  to  scrutinise  any  departure  from  its 
tradition ;  to  warn  sinners  with  urgency  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come  ;  to  train  its  members  into 
conformity  with  its  characteristic  religious  experi¬ 
ence  and  moral  code — seemed  the  work  supremely 
worth  doing,  for  the  neglect  of  which  no  width  of 
outlook  or  expansion  of  activity  could  atone.  I 
do  not,  therefore,  apologise  for  giving  so  large  a 
space  to  John  Wesley  in  this  brief  attempt  to 
describe  the  genius  of  Methodism.  It  is  in  his 
character  and  career  that  we  are  to  find  the 
answer  to  the  questions,  why  the  activities  of 
Methodism  ran  in  this  channel  rather  than  in  that, 
why  in  its  teaching  the  emphasis  was  placed 
where  it  was,  and  doctrines  assumed  their  relative 
proportion,  and  why  the  experience  which  it  has 
created  and  anxiously  cultured  has  been  so  largely 
of  one  type. 

I  need  not  tell  over  again  the  well-known  story 
of  England’s  lapse  into  barbarism  and  brutality, 
into  drunkenness  and  vice,  into  ignorance  and 
irreligion.  The  upper  classes  of  society  were,  for 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


213 


the  most  part,  frivolous,  cynical,  and  abandoned, 
without  reverence  for  God  or  sense  of  responsi¬ 
bility  towards  their  fellows.  For  them  Christianity 
was  a  superstition,  its  truth  disproved  so  con¬ 
clusively,  so  finally,  that  dispute  about  it  was  no 
longer  needed.  The  lower  classes,  neglected  by  those 
who  were  charged  with  concern  for  their  welfare, 
offered  an  appalling  spectacle  of  physical  destitu¬ 
tion  and  moral  degradation.  They  were  not  more 
vicious  than  their  social  superiors,  and  their  vices 
had  far  more  excuse,  since  they  did  not  flout  the 
restraints  of  morality,  but  were  rather  ignorant 
of  their  existence.  The  social  conditions  aggra¬ 
vated  the  evil.  The  dull  stagnation  of  their  life, 
the  discomforts  and  privations  against  which  they 
had  to  struggle,  the  brutality  of  the  penal  code, 
the  utter  lack  of  educational  system  and  intel¬ 
lectual  interest,  all  conspired  to  make  their  con¬ 
dition  one  in  which  the  higher  aspirations  had  but 
little  chance.  Sodden  and  stupid,  brutal  in  their 
pleasures,  and  bestial  in  their  vice,  they  were  as 
sheep  having  no  shepherd.  Lethargy  and  in¬ 
difference  had  overtaken  the  Churches  in  large 
measure ;  religion  had  become  formal  and  me¬ 
chanical  ;  the  heart-rending  condition  of  the  people 
was  taken  for  granted,  and  no  efforts  were  organ¬ 
ised  for  its  amelioration.  Of  course  this  descrip¬ 
tion  must  be  taken  with  qualification.  There  were 
exceptions,  but,  broadly  speaking,  the  impression 
conveyed  is  correct. 


214  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 

/ 

Such  an  exception  was  to  be  found  in  the  Ep- 
worth  Rectory,  where  John  and  Charles  Wesley 
were  born.  Though  of  Puritan  ancestors,  their 
parents  were  loyal  and  devoted  members  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Their  affinities  were  with 
the  Laudian  school,  a  circumstance  which  had  an 
important  bearing  on  the  later  development  of 
Wesley’s  theology.  John  Wesley’s  mother  was  a 
woman  of  exceptional  strength  of  character,  and 
the  indirect  debt  which  Methodism  owed  her  it 
would  not  be  easy  to  estimate.  An  austere  moral 
training,  an  exacting  piety,  an  unquestioned 
orthodoxy  were  the  heritage  which  the  Wesleys 
received  from  parents  who  had  little  else  to  give. 
I  must  not  linger  on  the  founding  of  the  Holy  Club 
at  Oxford ;  the  severity  of  its  mortifications ;  the 
zeal  with  which  it  ministered  to  the  distressed, 
and  especially  to  the  prisoners  in  the  gaol,  above 
all,  to  those  who  were  under  sentence  of  death. 
Nor  yet  must  I  dwell  on  John  Wesley’s  visit  to 
America,  whither  he  went  to  convert  the  Indians. 
He  was  at  this  time  a  dedicated  spirit,  serving  God 
and  his  fellows  with  an  exacting  fidelity  which 
gave  him  no  rest.  Politically  a  High  Churchman, 
stiff  in  the  maintenance  of  ministerial  prerogative, 
a  believer  in  apostolic  succession,  pressing  the  duty 
of  confession  to  the  minister,  repelling  from  the 
communion  those  in  whose  Christian  conduct  he 
could  find  no  flaw,  but  whose  ecclesiastical  status 
was  irregular  in  his  eyes,  narrow  and  intolerant 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


215 


to  those  outside  his  own  fold,  ascetic  in  theory 
and  in  practice,  he  had  affinities  with  the  Tractarians 
of  a  later  day.  But  he  repudiated  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation.  His  contact  with  the  Mora¬ 
vians  proved  the  turning-point  of  his  life.  He 
realised  that  religion  had  brought  to  them  an 
inward  peace  and  confidence  which  it  had  not 
brought  to  him.  When  pressed  as  to  his  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  inward  witness,  he  had  no  answer  to 
give.  He  came  to  feel  that  he  who  had  gone  to 
America  to  convert  the  Indians  was  not  converted 
himself. 

The  crisis  came  on  24th  May  1738.  The  classical 
passage  in  which  Wesley  tells  the  story  of  his 
evangelical  conversion  has  been  quoted  many 
times,  but  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  quote  it  once 
more.  “  In  the  evening  I  went  very  unwillingly 
to  a  Society  in  Aldersgate  Street,  where  one  was 
reading  Luther’s  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  About  a  quarter  before  nine,  while  he 
was  describing  the  change  which  God  works  in 
the  heart  through  faith  in  Christ,  I  felt  my  heart 
strangely  warmed.  I  felt  I  did  trust  in  Christ, 
Christ  alone  for  salvation  ;  and  an  assurance  was 
given  me  that  He  had  taken  away  my  sins,  even 
mine,  and  saved  me  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.” 
His  brother  Charles  had  passed  through  the  same 
experience  three  days  before.  To  John  Wesley 
this  experience  seemed  at  the  time  to  be  a  real 
passing  from  death  to  life.  When  he  looked  back 


216  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


upon  it  in  riper  years  he  still  recognised  the  critical 
character  of  the  experience,  but  drew  much  less 
sharply  the  distinction  between  the  religious  con¬ 
dition  it  inaugurated  and  that  which  had  pre¬ 
ceded  it.  Instead  of  denying  that  he  possessed 
faith  at  all,  he  described  his  faith  as  that  of  a 
servant,  not  of  a  son.  And  in  the  review  of  his 
life,  which  in  his  journal  immediately  precedes 
the  account  of  his  conversion,  he  brings  out  very 
strongly  this  servile  condition.  He  was  under 
the  Law,  striving  to  live  in  the  fullest  conformity 
with  it,  but  trusting  to  his  own  works  and  his 
own  righteousness,  and  without  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit.  Even  when  he  was  strongly  convinced 
that  a  true,  living  faith  was  the  one  thing  needful, 
he  did  not  fix  it  on  its  right  object  :  “  I  meant 
only  faith  in  God,  not  faith  in  or  through  Christ.” 
He  fought  strenuously  against  Peter  Bohler’s 
affirmation  with  reference  to  true  faith  in  Christ 
that  it  was  inseparably  accompanied  by  “  dominion 
over  sin  and  constant  peace  from  a  sense  of  for¬ 
giveness.”  He  required  that  it  should  be  attested 
by  Scripture  and  experience.  His  investigation 
of  the  former  brought  him  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  plain  sense  of  the  Bible  made  against  his 
opinion,  but  since  he  did  not  believe  that  experi¬ 
ence  would  accord  with  the  literal  interpretation 
of  the  passages,  he  refused  to  accept  it  till  he  found 
some  living  witnesses  of  it.  These  were  produced, 
and  all  testified  “  that  a  true  living  faith  in  Christ 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


217 


is  inseparable  from  a  sense  of  pardon  for  all  past 
and  freedom  from  all  present  sins.  They  added 
with  one  month  that  this  faith  was  the  gift,  the 
free  gift  of  God ;  and  that  He  would  surely  bestow 
it  upon  every  soul  who  earnestly  and  perseveringly 
sought  it.55  He  was  at  last  convinced,  and  re¬ 
solved  to  seek  this  faith  by  absolutely  renouncing 
all  dependence  on  his  own  works  or  righteousness, 
“on  which,”  he  says,  “I  had  really  grounded  my 
hope  of  salvation,  though  I  knew  it  not,  from  my 
youth  up,”  and  by  prayer  for  justifying,  saving 
faith.  The  experience  through  which  Wesley  thus 
passed  was  closely  parallel  to  that  of  Luther  and 
essentially  to  that  of  Paul.  It  was  the  transition 
from  the  bondage  of  an  anxious  legalism  to  an 
evangelical  faith  and  the  freedom  of  the  children 
of  God.  It  meant  for  him  that  the  emphasis  was 
shifted  from  baptism  to  conversion,  from  works 
to  faith.  He  felt  that  a  man  might  have  lived  the 
life  he  had  lived,  of  intense,  unsparing  devotion 
to  God  and  service  to  his  fellows,  and  yet  be  an 
unconverted  man.  His  standing  with  God  he  came 
to  see  rested  wholly  on  the  merit  of  Christ,  his 
own  merit  and  works  counting  for  nothing.  Of 
momentous  importance,  too,  was  the  assurance  of 
pardon  which  was  the  outcome  of  his  trust. 

We  must  now  consider  how  Methodism  grew 
out  of  this  experience.  Of  course  John  Wesley 
brought  with  him  from  his  earlier  stage  a  large 
Anglican  heritage.  He  always  believed  his  own 


218  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


theological  opinions  to  be  in  harmony  with  the 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England ;  but  there  was 
much  that  remained  unchanged  by  the  crisis 
through  which  he  passed, — the  great  fundamental 
Articles  of  the  Creed  ;  an  Arminian  as  opposed  to 
a  Calvinistic  conception  of  the  universality  of 
redemption  ;  a  vivid  conviction  of  the  imperious 
demands  of  conscience  ;  a  love  of  order,  propriety, 
and  conventionality  ;  a  sense  of  the  rights  and 
prerogatives  of  the  clergy.  But  the  new  point  of 
view  changed  the  emphasis  in  some  respects,  while 
the  course  of  events  and  the  leading  of  Providence 
forced  him  gradually  to  abandon  much  that  he  at 
first  strenuously  maintained,  v  What  he  saw  with 
appalling  clearness  of  vision  and  intensity  of  com¬ 
passion  was  the  imminent  peril,  in  which  multitudes 
stood,  of  eternal  banishment  from  God  to  hopeless, 
unimaginable  torment.  His  evangelistic  passion 
swept  away  his  most  obstinate  prejudices.  If  men 
could  be  saved  by  regular  means  so  much  the 
better  ;  if  not,  then  by  irregular  rather  than  not 
saved  at  all ;  saved  they  must  be  at  any  cost. 
When  parish  churches  were  closed  to  him  he  had 
to  take  to  the  fields  or  the  streets  ;  and  if  but  few 
of  the  clergy  would  preach  the  necessity  of  con¬ 
version,  or  offer  the  “full,  free,  and  present  salva¬ 
tion,  attainable  now,”  which  was  the  characteristic 
Methodist  message,  then  the  duty  must  be  entrusted 
to  laymen.  His  consecration  was  unreserved,  he 
sacrificed  his  cherished  prejudices,  crucified  his 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


219 


natural  preferences,1  would  not  swerve  a  liair’s- 
breadth  from  the  work  of  the  ministry  even  to 
vindicate  his  own  honour  and  reputation  when  it 
was  venomously  assailed.2  He  was  indeed  almost 
inhuman  in  his  concentration  on  his  mission.3 
He  had  an  astonishing  capacity  for  work  ;  he  had 
reduced  the  economy  of  time  to  a  fine  art ;  he  had 
a  remarkable  gift  of  endurance,  an  imperious  will, 
a  genius  for  organisation  which  has  rarely  been 

1  “  What  marvel  the  devil  does  not  love  field  preaching  !  Neither 
do  I.  I  love  a  commodious  room,  a  soft  cushion,  and  a  handsome 
pulpit.  But  where  is  my  zeal,  if  I  do  not  trample  all  these  under 
foot,  in  order  to  save  one  more  soul  1  ” — Tyerman’s  Life  and  Times 
of  John  Wesley,  vol.  ii.  p.  329. 

2  His  wife,  whose  character  is  too  well  known  to  need  description, 
sent  some  letters  of  Wesley,  which  she  had  infamously  interpolated, 
to  a  newspaper.  Charles  Wesley  in  consternation  begged  his  brother 
to  postpone  a  journey  and  remain  in  London  to  defend  himself. 
His  daughter  gives  the  following  account  of  the  interview  :  “I  shall 
never  forget  the  manner  in  which  my  father  accosted  my  mother 
on  his  return  home.  ‘  My  brother,’  said  he,  ‘  is  indeed  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  man.  I  placed  before  him  the  importance  of  the  character 
of  a  minister  ;  and  the  evil  consequences  which  might  result  from 
his  indifference  to  it  ;  and  urged  him,  by  every  relative  and  public 
motive,  to  answer  for  himself,  and  stop  the  publication.  His  reply 
was,  “  Brother,  when  I  devoted  to  God  my  ease,  my  time,  my  life,  did 
I  except  my  reputation  ?  No.  Tell  Sally  I  will  take  her  to  Canter¬ 
bury  to-morrow.”  ’  ” — Tyerman,  loc.  cit.  vol.  iii.  pp.  233  f. 

3  In  March  1751,  a  fortnight  after  his  marriage,  he  left  his  wife 
for  the  Conference  at  Bristol.  He  returned  after  three  weeks’ 
absence,  and  left  London  in  six  days’  time.  His  entry  in  his  journal 
is  as  follows  :  “I  cannot  understand  how  a  Methodist  preacher 
can  answer  it  to  God,  to  preach  one  sermon,  to  travel  one  day  less, 
in  a  married  than  in  a  single  state.  In  this  respect  surely,  ‘  it 
remaineth,  that  they  who  have  wives  be  as  though  they  had  none.’  ” 
But  the  austerity  of  Wesley  has  been  much  exaggerated.  See 
Rigg,  The  Living  Wesley,  part  iv.  chap,  ii.,  and  A  Neiv  History  of 
Methodism,  vol.  i.  pp.  204-207. 


220  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


surpassed.  His  life  was  prolonged  to  an  extreme 
old  age,  and  he  was  active  till  the  last.  It  is  not 
wonderful  in  view’  of  all  these  circumstances  that 
he  achieved  so  much.  Yet  it  was  not  his  wrork 
alone  which  changed  the  face  of  England.  The 
incomparable  oratory  of  Whitefield,  whose  zeal 
burned  with  the  same  apostolic  glow  ;  the  preach¬ 
ing,  and,  far  more,  the  hymns  of  Charles  Wesley  ; 
the  unsparing  labours  of  the  Methodist  preachers  ; 
the  devoted  lives  of  the  Methodist  people,  multitudes 
of  whom  were  a  testimony  to  the  miraculous  power 
of  the  Gospel,  which  none  who  had  known  them 
in  their  earlier  blindness  could  gainsay;  co-operated 
with  the  labours  of  the  founder  to  achieve  the 
grand  result. 

The  success  won  by  the  movement  in  Wesley’s 
lifetime  was  phenomenal.  When  he  died  in  1791 
the  number  of  members  in  the  society  in  Great 
Britain  was  72,000,  the  adherents  were  estimated 
to  be  nearly  half  a  million.  Taking  America  with 
Great  Britain  the  membership  stood  at  136,000, 
the  adherents  were  calculated  at  more  than  800,000. 
Since  that  period  the  advance  has  been  very  re¬ 
markable.  Of  course  it  has  been  checked  by 
various  influences,  especially  the  disastrous  dis¬ 
putes  on  ecclesiastical  questions,  which  led  to  the 
secessions  out  of  which  came  the  Methodist  New 
Connexion  and  the  United  Methodist  Free  Church. 
We  have  also  always  to  reckon  in  religious  move¬ 
ments  with  the  loss  of  the  early  enthusiasm  and 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


221 


the  settling  down  into  conditions  in  which  re¬ 
spectability  tends  to  suppress  the  unconventional 
expression  of  religious  experience  or  evangelistic 
fervour.  Movements  which  begin  in  an  irregular 
way  and  set  precedents  at  defiance  create  ere 
long  precedents  of  their  own,  lose  their  elasticity, 
and  stiffen  into  an  ecclesiasticism  which  looks 
askance  at  departure  from  its  rigid  routine.  The 
movements  which  gave  rise  to  the  Primitive 
Methodist  and  the  Bible  Christian  Churches  were 
irregular  in  character  and  were  therefore  disowned 
by  the  Wesleyan  Conference.  Both  sides  had  a 
real  case,  and,  as  we  can  see  looking  back  calmly, 
while  the  leaders  of  the  movements  were  conscious 
of  a  Divine  call  which  they  dared  not  disobey,  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  were  not  unreasonably  ap¬ 
prehensive  lest  the  movements  should  be  attended 
with  grave  moral  peril.  They  were,  however, 
overruled  for  good,  and  very  friendly  feelings 
have  characterised  almost  throughout  the  relations 
between  the  older  and  the  younger  bodies,  neither 
of  which,  strictly  speaking,  had  originated  in  a 
schism.  And  in  the  case  of  the  secessions  time 
has  healed  the  soreness  which  controversy  created. 
A  very  happy  indication  of  the  brotherly  feeling 
which  now  prevails  was  given  by  the  first  Methodist 
Assembly  recently  held,  in  which  all  the  sections 
of  British  Methodism  met  together  for  mutual 
instruction  and  encouragement.  Recently  three 
Methodist  communities,  the  Methodist  New  Con- 


222  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


nexion,  the  Bible  Christians,  and  the  United 
Methodist  Free  Church,  joined  to  form  the  United 
Methodist  Church.  A  comparatively  new  country 
like  America  has  naturally  offered  much  more 
scope  for  expansion  than  Great  Britain,  and  in 
the  United  States  the  total  membership  in  1908 
amounted  to  more  than  six  and  a  half  millions. 
In  Canada  the  membership  was  over  320,000,  in 
Australasia  over  150,000.  The  total  membership 
of  world-wide  Methodism  in  that  year  is  given  as 
8,655,267.  The  number  of  scholars  in  the  Sunday 
Schools  is  given  as  7,058,635.  It  must  be  remem¬ 
bered,  in  estimating  the  significance  of  these  figures, 
that  a  very  large  number  of  worshippers  and  ad¬ 
herents  in  Methodist  Churches,  including  multitudes 
of  children,  are  not  enrolled  as  members.  To 
ascertain  the  total  number  of  members  and  ad¬ 
herents  the  number  of  members  should  be  multi¬ 
plied  at  least  by  three.  We  should  probably  be 
safe  in  estimating  that  there  are  twenty-five  million 
Methodists  in  the  world.  Some  would  fix  the 
number  at  about  thirty  millions.1  Only  parochial 
insularity  could  affect  to  ignore,  in  its  dreams  of  a 
reunited  Christendom,  a  force  so  vast.  Equally 

1  A  table  of  statistics  of  Methodism  in  1908  is  given  by  Mr.  Eayrs 
in  A  Neiv  History  of  Methodism  (1909).  It  is  very  difficult  to  apply 
any  general  principle  in  calculating,  on  a  basis  of  membership, 
the  number  of  adherents,  inasmuch  as  conditions  vary  widely. 
Dr.  Simon  gives  a  cautious  estimate  in  his  Fernley  Lecture  (p.  274). 
“  We  think  that  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that,  at  the  present 
time,  there  are  upwards  of  twenty-five  millions  of  persons  in  the 
world  who  may  be  considered  as  Methodists.” 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


223 


impressive  are  the  statistics  of  Church  property. 
The  churches  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  together 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  South,  and  the  Canadian 
Methodist  Church,  hold  property  which  has  cost 
more  than  eighty-four  million  pounds. 

From  this  bare  statement  of  statistics  I  pass  on 
to  speak  of  Wesley’s  attitude  to  Theology.  This 
was  largely  determined  by  practical  considerations. 
Those  doctrines  which  were  essential  to  his  message 
of  salvation  were  naturally  those  on  which  most 
emphasis  was  placed.  His  intellect  was  of  the 
clear  and  logical  order,  his  style  of  presentation 
argumentative.  There  was  a  critical  and  even  a 
sceptical  vein  in  his  nature,1  though  he  did  not 
exercise  this  faculty  on  the  truths  of  revelation, 
which  he  accepted  with  implicit  confidence,2  and 
to  which  his  own  preconceived  opinions  were 
forced  to  give  way.  His  resolve  to  test  the 
Moravian  conception  of  saving  faith  by  Scripture 
and  experience  was  characteristic  of  his  later 


1  This  is  brought  out  very  well  by  Dr.  Rigg  in  The  Living  W esley, 
pp.  184-191.  He  quotes  a  passage  from  Wesley’s  sermon  on  The 
Good  Steward,  from  which  I  take  the  following  sentences :  “  After 
having  sought  the  truth  with  some  diligence  for  half  a  century,  I 
am,  at  this  day,  hardly  sure  of  anything  but  what  I  learn  from 
the  Bible.  Nay,  I  positively  affirm  that  I  know  nothing  else  so 
certainly  that  I  would  dare  to  stake  my  salvation  upon  it.” 

2  It  is  true  that  he  says  that  he  had  a  thousand  times  doubted 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Scripture  after  the  fullest  assurance  preceding 
(Rigg,  lx.  p.  184).  But  I  think  the  statement  in  the  text  may 
stand  as  representing  his  habitual  attitude,  which  is  expressed  in 
the  passage  quoted  in  the  previous  note. 


224  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


attitude.  What  the  Gospel  really  was  had  to  be 
determined  by  investigation  of  the  word  of  God, 
and  that  interpretation  accepted  which  harmonised 
with  experience.  His  distaste  for  the  twilight  and 
his  love  for  a  logically  articulated  system  of  saving 
truth  made  the  idea  of  a  plan  of  salvation  congenial 
to  him.  This  plan  was  something  which  could  be 
stated  in  plain  and  simple  words  so  that  the  least 
educated  might  understand  it,  and  granting  its 
premises  it  was  to  commend  itself  to  men  of  reason 
by  its  self-consistency.  Nothing  could  be  further 
from  the  truth  than  to  imagine  that  the  sermons 
of  Wesley  consisted  of  rhetoric,  or  sentiment,  or 
appeal  to  the  emotions — he  appealed  rather  to 
the  will  through  the  reason. 

He  accepted,  of  course,  the  great  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  faith — the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  original  sin,  redemption  through 
the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  Christ,  the  Divinity  and 
personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  justification  by 
faith,  rewards  and  punishments.  A  special  stress 
was  laid  on  the  depravity  of  human  nature,  even 
in  the  best.  His  emphasis  on  this  aroused  a  very 
fierce  resentment.  Prizing  the  sacraments  though 
he  did,  his  own  experience  had  driven  him  to  the 
conviction  that  they  did  not  suffice  for  salvation. 
The  radical  mischief  of  human  nature  was  not 
removed  by  baptism.  Regeneration  was  the  result 
of  a  conscious  and  deliberate  turning  to  God  in 
repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.  Still  less  than  the 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


225 


appointed  means  of  grace  could  a  man’s  own  good 
works  save  him.  All  this  was  directly  in  the  teeth 
of  the  conception  of  Christianity  current  at  the 
time,  which  regarded  the  Church  as  the  ark  of 
salvation  to  be  entered  by  regeneration  in  baptism. 
Wesley  did  not  underestimate  the  importance  of 
the  Church,  but  salvation  was  for  him  an  intensely 
personal  matter.  Men  were  saved  one  by  one, 
not  in  virtue  of  their  membership  in  a  society.  To 
the  Greeks  the  cross  is  bound  to  be  foolishness  ; 
men  of  taste  have  a  natural  aversion  to  evangelical 
religion ;  while  the  aristocratically  minded  feel  it 
most  objectionable  to  be  reduced  before  God  to 
the  same  level  as  their  humbler  fellows.  This 
resentment  and  disgust  come  out  very  clearly  in 
a  well-known  letter  written  by  the  Duchess  of 
Buckingham  to  the  Countess  of  Huntingdon  : — 

“  I  thank  your  ladyship  for  the  information  con¬ 
cerning  the  Methodist  preaching  ;  their  doctrines 
are  most  repulsive,  and  strongly  tinctured  with 
impertinence  and  disrespect  towards  their  superiors, 
in  perpetually  endeavouring  to  level  all  ranks  and 
to  do  away  with  all  distinctions,  as  it  is  monstrous 
to  be  told  that  you  have  a  heart  as  sinful  as  the 
common  wretches  that  crawl  on  the  earth.  This 
is  highly  offensive  and  insulting.” 

Having  once  to  preach  to  an  aristocratic  audience, 
Wesley  took  for  his  text,  “  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation 
of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of 
hell  ?  ”  When  some  one  said  that  such  a  sermon 
would  have  been  suitable  in  Billingsgate,  “  but  it 
*5 


226  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


was  highly  improper  here,”  Wesley  replied  that 
had  he  been  preaching  in  Billingsgate  his  text 
would  have  been,  “  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  1  To  the  baptized 
as  well  as  to  the  unbaptized  the  warning  was 
addressed,  “  Ye  must  be  born  again.”  And  it 
was  addressed  to  all  without  the  discrimination 
which  accompanies  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atone¬ 
ment.  Wesley’s  Arminianism  was  part  of  his 
inheritance  from  the  Laudian  Anglicanism  in  which 
he  had  been  trained.  It  was  an  element  of  in¬ 
calculable  value.  Of  course  it  caused  the  Noncon¬ 
formists,  who  were  largely  Calvinistic,  to  look  for 
a  while  askance  on  the  Methodist  movement,  since 
they  dreaded  that  unhappy  results  might  follow 
from  this  presentation  of  the  gospel,  as,  indeed, 
had  happened  in  other  cases.  It  was,  therefore, 
not  altogether  a  misfortune  that  Whitefield,  while 
preaching  essentially  the  same  gospel  as  Wesley, 
was  himself  a  Calvinist.  It  helped  to  break  down 
the  prejudice  which  the  Nonconformists  felt  against 
Methodism.  The  main  body  of  Methodist  opinion, 
however,  was  decisively  Arminian,  and  it  had  the 
future  before  it.  To  every  man  the  assurance  was 
offered  that  Jesus  had  died  for  him  ;  that  he  was 
caught  in  the  toils  of  no  irreversible  decree,  which 
rendered  it  impossible  to  accept  the  gospel  invita¬ 
tion  ;  that  his  will  was  free  to  accept  or  to  refuse  ; 
and  that  at  any  moment  he  might  turn  from  his 

1  Tyerman,  lx.  vol.  iii.  p.  657. 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


227 


evil  way  and  live.  The  universality  of  redemption 
was  affirmed  in  the  Methodist  hymns  as  well  as  in 
the  sermons  ;  and  sometimes  the  full  meaning  of 
the  hymns  can  be  grasped  only  if  the  implicit  anti¬ 
thesis  to  Calvinism  is  borne  in  mind. 

“  Father,  whose  everlasting  love 
Thine  only  Son  for  sinners  gave, 

Whose  grace  to  all  did  freely  move, 

And  sent  Him  down  the  world  to  save — 

Help  us  Thy  mercy  to  extol, 

Immense,  unfathomed,  unconfined  ; 

To  praise  the  Lamb  who  died  for  all, 

The  general  Saviour  of  mankind. 

Thy  undistinguishing  regard 

Was  cast  on  Adam’s  fallen  race  ; 

For  all  Thou  hast  in  Christ  prepared 
Sufficient,  sovereign,  saving  grace. 

The  world  He  suffered  to  redeem  ; 

For  all  He  hath  the  atonement  made, 

For  those  that  will  not  come  to  Him 
The  ransom  of  His  life  was  paid.” 

But  this  thought  of  the  universality  of  redemption 
did  not  detract  from  the  sense  of  wonder  with  which 
the  saved  man  regarded  the  miracle  of  grace  that 
had  brought  him  up  out  of  the  horrible  pit.  Once 
again  the  hymns  supply  us  with  the  best  illustra¬ 
tions.  While  John  Wesley’s  four  volumes  of 
sermons  and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament  are 
the  official  standards  of  Methodist  doctrine  and 
have  left  their  deep  mark  on  the  theology  and 
experience  of  Methodism,  the  hymns  of  Charles 
Wesley  have  probably  had  a  deeper,  as  they  have 


228  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


unquestionably  had  a  far  wider  influence  ;  and  it 
is  to  these  rather  than  the  more  formal  statements 
that  it  is  best  where  possible  to  turn  when  we  are 
in  search  of  the  Methodist  point  of  view,  and  still 
more  when  we  are  seeking  to  understand  the  typical 
Methodist  experience.  The  note  of  wonder  that 
the  grace  of  God  should  have  stooped  to  save  the 
chief  of  sinners  is  struck  in  them  again  and  again. 
An  admirable  example  it  is  worth  our  while  to 
quote  at  length. 

“  And  can  it  be  that  I  should  gain 
An  interest  in  the  Saviour’s  blood  ? 

Died  He  for  me,  who  caused  His  pain  ? 

For  me,  who  Him  to  death  pursued  ? 

Amazing  love  !  how  can  it  be 

That  Thou,  my  God,  should’st  die  for  me  ! 

’Tis  mystery  all  !  The  Immortal  dies  ! 

Who  can  explore  His  strange  design  ! 

In  vain  the  first-born  seraph  tries 
To  sound  the  depth  of  love  Divine. 

’Tis  mercy  all !  let  earth  adore, 

Let  angel  minds  inquire  no  more. 

He  left  His  Father’s  throne  above  ; 

So  free,  so  infinite  His  grace  ! 

Emptied  Himself  of  all  but  love. 

And  bled  for  Adam’s  helpless  race  ! 

’Tis  mercy  all,  immense  and  free, 

For,  O  my  God,  it  found  out  me  ! 

Long  my  imprisoned  spirit  lay 

Fast  bound  in  sin  and  nature’s  night ; 

Thine  eye  diffused  a  quickening  ray  : 

I  woke,  the  dungeon  flamed  with  light ; 

My  chains  fell  off,  my  heart  was  free, 

I  rose,  went  forth,  and  followed  Thee. 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


229 


No  condemnation  now  I  dread  ; 

Jesus,  and  all  in  Him,  is  mine  ! 

Alive  in  Him,  my  living  Head, 

And  clothed  in  righteousness  divine, 

Bold  I  approach  the  eternal  throne. 

And  claim  the  crown,  through  Christ,  my  own.” 

“  It  found  out  me  !  55  Such  was  the  supreme 
marvel  of  the  Divine  grace.  Or  we  might  take  as 
another  example  the  hymn  which  opens  with  the 
line,  “  Where  shall  my  wondering  soul  begin  ?  55 
<  It  was  natural  that  conversion  should  normally 
assume  the  form  of  a  crisis.^  There  might  be  pro¬ 
longed  wrestling  of  spirit,  deep  agony  under  the 
conviction  of  sin  ;  or  the  sinner  might  be  stopped 
in  full  career,  enter,  as  often  happened,  the  service 
as  a  scoffer,  a  blasphemer,  and  a  persecutor,  and 
leave  it  with  the  sense  of  pardon  and  peace.  But 
whether  in  one  way  or  the  other,  there  was  normally 
a  sharpness  and  definiteness  about  the  experience 
which  has  caused  many  Methodists  till  a  com¬ 
paratively  recent  period  to  look  with  a  degree  of 
suspicion  on  those  who  could  not  point  to  the  very 
time  and  place  where  they  came  to  know  that  their 
sins  were  forgiven.  Wesley  himself,  it  is  true, 
recognised  that  the  consciousness  of  acceptance 
might  come  “  by  almost  insensible  degrees,  like  the 
dawning  of  the  day.”  The  doctrine  of  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit  naturally  received  a  very  prominent 
place  in  Methodist  theology.1  In  Wesley’s  account 

1  Wesley’s  definition  in  his  first  sermon  on  The  Witness  of  the 
Spirit  is  important.  It  was  reiterated  twenty  years  later  in  the 
second  Discourse.  After  pointing  out  the  inadequacy  of  human 


230  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


of  his  conversion  already  quoted,  we  read :  “  An 
assurance  was  given  me  that  He  had  taken  away 
my  sins,  even  mine,  and  saved  me  from  the  law  of 
sin  and  death.”  This  experience  was  reproduced 
in  countless  other  cases,  and  was,  in  fact,  so  normal 
that  at  an  earlier  time  the  vast  majority  of  Metho¬ 
dists  would  probably  have  refused  to  admit  that 
a  man  was  truly  forgiven  unless  he  had  the  witness 
to  his  pardon  within  himself.  It  would  have  been 
regarded  as  axiomatic  by  many  that  no  further 
proof  was  needed  that  a  man’s  sins  had  not  been 
forgiven  than  that  he  should  dispute  the  possibility 
that  one  should  know  on  earth  his  sins  forgiven. 
Since  every  one  whose  sins  were  forgiven  must  be 
aware  of  the  fact,  whoever  disputed  the  possibility 
of  such  knowledge  demonstrated  that  his  own  sins 
still  remained  unpardoned.  At  a  later  time  Wesley 

language  to  express  the  experience  enjoyed  by  the  children  of  God, 
he  proceeds  :  “  But  perhaps  one  might  say  (desiring  any  who  are 
taught  of  God  to  correct,  to  soften,  or  strengthen  the  expression) 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  an  inward  impression  on  the  soul, 
whereby  the  Spirit  of  God  directly  witnesses  to  my  spirit,  that  I 
am  a  child  of  God  ;  that  Jesus  Christ  hath  loved  me,  and  given 
Himself  for  me  ;  and  that  all  my  sins  are  blotted  out,  and  I,  even  I, 
am  reconciled  to  God.”  At  a  later  point  he  adds  :  “  But  the  fact 
we  know,  namely,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  does  give  a  believer  such  a 
testimony  of  his  adoption,  that  while  it  is  present  to  the  soul,  he 
can  no  more  doubt  the  reality  of  his  sonship,  than  he  can  doubt  of 
the  shining  of  the  sun,  while  he  stands  in  the  full  blaze  of  his 
beams.”  Recent  discussions  may  be  seen  in  Dr.  Workman’s 
Introduction  to  A  New  History  of  Methodism,  vol.  i.  pp.  19-31, 
and  in  Dr.  Tasker’s  article  “Certainty”  in  Hastings  ’’lEncyclopcedia 
of  Religion  and  Ethics,  vol.  iii.  Very  characteristic  expressions  of 
the  doctrine  may  be  found  in  the  hymns,  “  Spirit  of  faith,  come 
down,”  and  “  How  can  a  sinner  know  His  sins  on  earth  forgiven  ?  ” 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


231 


came  to  see  that  his  doctrine  had  been  altogether 
too  sweeping.  Much  was  still  made  of  the  inward 
witness.  It  was  presented  as  the  privilege  of  all 
believers,  to  be  earnestly  sought  after  where  it  had 
not  been  attained  at  conversion.  But,  from  the 
standpoint  of  his  maturer  experience,  having  come 
to  recognise  that  he  himself  had  had  a  true  faith, 
though  it  was  but  the  faith  of  a  servant,  not  of  a 
son,  in  the  period  which  closed  with  that  memorable 
night  in  Aldersgate  Street,  he  came  also  to  see 
that  there  were  those  who  did  not  possess  the 
testimony  of  the  Spirit  to  their  sonship  who, 
nevertheless,  were  sons  of  God.  On  them  it  was 
to  be  well  understood  that  the  wrath  of  God  did 
not  abide.  In  the  present  day  the  doctrine  of  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  has  fallen  much  into  the  back¬ 
ground.  It  is  probably  inevitable  that  it  should 
be  so.  Where  conversion  is  usually  experienced  as 
a  great  crisis,  which  cuts  the  life  into  two  sharply 
contrasted  periods,  it  is  natural  that  the  sense  of 
change  should  be  far  more  overwhelming  than 
where  there  has  been  no  such  sudden  rupture  of 
continuity.  In  the  third  and  fourth  generation  the 
conditions  are  completely  transformed.  Yet  it  is 
to  be  wished  that  Methodism  could  recover  the 
sense  of  certainty,  checking,  indeed,  the  personal 
by  the  collective  experience  and  proclaiming  the 
doctrine  of  assurance  with  a  larger  charity.  It  is 
easy  to  see  what  a  gain  it  was  to  Methodism  to  be 
free  from  the  anxious  scrupulosity  of  the  legalist 


232  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


who  could  never  be  sure  of  his  standing  with  God, 
and  from  the  dread  which  darkened  the  life  of 
many  a  Calvinist,  whether  in  His  inscrutable  counsel 
God  had  selected  him  for  election  or  reprobation. 

The  doctrine  of  assurance  naturally  called  forth 
the  bitterest  opposition.  It  savoured  of  fanaticism 
and  enthusiasm,  than  which  the  eighteenth  century 
knewr  scarcely  anything  to  be  more  distrusted  and 
despised.  Many  felt  that  it  fostered  spiritual 
pride,  and  that  the  discipline  of  uncertainty  was 
needed  to  save  the  Christian  from  unwatchfulness 
and  presumption.  The  unguarded  way  in  which  it 
was  constantly  stated  laid  it  open  to  the  obvious 
objection  that  experience  contradicted  it,  inasmuch 
as  there  were  many  whose  genuine  Christianity 
could  not  be  doubted,  who,  nevertheless,  did  not 
enjoy  this  experience.  Many  regarded  it  much  as 
the  Duchess  of  Buckingham  had  regarded  the 
doctrine  of  total  depravity.  Referring  to  a  man 
who  had  been  adjudged  to  banishment  or  to  death, 
Wesley  says:  “I  asked  a  little  gentleman  at  St. 
Just  wrhat  objection  there  was  to  Edward  Green¬ 
field.  He  said,  4  Why,  the  man  is  well  enough  in 
other  things  ;  but  his  impudence  the  gentlemen 
cannot  bear.  Why,  sir,  he  says  he  knows  his  sins 
are  forgiven  !  ’  ”  To  the  criticisms  which  were  urged 
against  his  doctrine  Wesley  replied  by  an  appeal 
to  the  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England.  He  was 
not  indifferent  to  the  danger  of  subjectivity  and 
the  possibility  of  self-delusion,  and  therefore  he 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


233 


insisted  that  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  must  be 
accompanied  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,1  while 
by  the  institution  of  meetings  for  fellowship  he 
corrected  the  individual  by  the  collective  experience. 

This  freedom  from  uncertainty,  this  consciousness 
of  deliverance,  created  a  new  rapture  and  unsealed 
new  springs  of  peace.  One  does  not  understand 
Methodism  unless  he  has  realised  that  it  is  a  religion 
of  joy  and  exultation.  This  joy  had  more  than 
one  root :  partly  it  was  the  rebound  from  the  grief 
over  the  past  and  despair  for  the  future,  which  was 
so  often  the  immediate  antecedent  of  conversion ; 
partly  it  was  the  unspeakable  relief  which  sprang 
from  the  sense  of  forgiveness  and  the  assurance 
that  the  crushing  burden  of  sin  had  been  removed. 
Deepest  of  all  was  the  bliss  experienced  in  fellow¬ 
ship  with  the  Redeemer  Himself.  This,  again,  is 
best  illustrated  by  hymns.  The  first  I  quote,  not 
forgetful  of  Matthew  Arnold’s  condemnation,  which, 
from  his  standpoint,  was  only  to  be  anticipated. 
One  might,  indeed,  wish  the  expression  at  the 
close  of  the  second  verse  to  be  improved,  but  I  am 
concerned  with  the  content  of  the  experience  itself. 

“My  God  I  am  Thine, 

What  a  comfort  divine, 

What  a  blessing  to  know  that  my  Jesus  is  mine  ! 

In  the  heavenly  Lamb 
Thrice  happy  I  am, 

And  my  heart  it  doth  dance  at  the  sound  of  His  Name. 


1  “  Let  none  ever  presume  to  rest  in  any  supposed  testimony  of 
the  Spirit,  which  is  separate  from  the  fruit  of  it.” 


234  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


True  pleasures  abound 
In  the  rapturous  sound  ; 

And  whoever  hath  found  it,  hath  Paradise  found. 

My  Jesus  to  know, 

And  feel  His  blood  flow, 

’Tis  life  everlasting,  ’tis  heaven  below.” 

To  hear  this  hymn  sung  to  a  Corybantic  tune  by 
a  congregation  wholly  possessed  with  the  feelings 
it  describes,  and  to  hear  it  with  sympathy  and  not 
with  disdain,  is  to  gain  an  insight  into  an  essential 
element  in  religion,  the  lack  of  which  is  painfully 
felt  in  many  who  have  sought  to  expound  its  in¬ 
most  nature.  It  is  a  deeper  note  which  is  sounded 
in  another  verse. 

“Ah  !  show  me  that  happiest  place, 

The  place  of  Thy  people’s  abode, 

Where  saints  in  an  ecstasy  gaze, 

And  hang  on  a  crucified  God  ; 

Thy  love  for  a  sinner  declare, 

Thy  passion  and  death  on  the  tree  : 

My  spirit  to  Calvary  bear, 

To  suffer  and  triumph  with  Thee.” 

John  Wesley’s  strong  language  about  the  Mystics  1 
must  not  blind  us  to  the  real  affinity  with  some 
elements  in  Mysticism  which  have  entered  very 

1  Wesley  had  been  deeply  influenced  by  the  Mystics  in  his  earlier 
period,  but  as  early  as  1736  he  had  written  an  abstract  of  their 
doctrines  to  his  brother  Samuel  (quoted  in  Tyerman’s  Life,  vol.  i. 
pp.  133  f.),  from  which  his  judgment,  even  before  his  conversion, 
may  be  gathered.  It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  the  Mystics 
are,  for  him,  those  who  slight  the  means  of  grace.  The  passage  opens  : 
“  I  think  the  rock  on  which  I  had  nearest  made  shipwreck  of  the 
faith  was  the  writings  of  the  Mystics  :  under  which  term  I  compre¬ 
hend  all,  and  only  those,  who  slight  any  of  the  means  of  grace.” 
(See  also  vol.  iii.  p.  341.)  Dr.  Workman  quotes  the  following  vehe- 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


235 


deeply  into  the  essence  of  Methodism.  His  own 
translations  from  some  of  the  German  hymns  give 
an  admirable  expression  to  this  aspect  of  Methodism. 

A  great  urgency  was  given  to  the  preaching  of 
the  Methodists  by  their  conviction  of  the  terrible 
and  hopeless  destiny  which  awaited  those  who  died 
in  their  sins.  It  is  easy  to  criticise  the  prudential 
element  in  their  appeals  to  the  unconverted  ;  but 
it  was  a  profound  pity  and  unselfish  love  of  their 
fellows  that  led  them  to  face  social  ostracism, 
the  penalties  of  the  law,  and  the  ferocity  of  the 
mob,  if  only  they  could  save  souls  from  the 
torments  of  hell.  At  times  the  expression  of 
the  supreme  importance  attaching  to  decision  is 
apt  to  seem  repulsive.  An  example  of  this  is  to 
be  found  in  the  following  verse — 

“  Nothing  is  worth  a  thought  beneath, 

But  how  I  may  escape  the  death 
That  never,  never  dies — 

How  make  my  own  election  sure, 

And,  when  I  fail  on  earth,  secure 
A  mansion  in  the  skies.” 

To  our  self-complacent  altruism  the  naked  egoism 
here  so  indecently  exhibited  may  perhaps  seem 

ment  sentences,  written  many  years  later  :  “  All  the  other  enemies  of 
Christianity  are  trifles.  The  Mystics  are  the  most  dangerous.  They 
stab  it  in  the  vitals,  and  its  most  serious  professors  are  most  likely 
to  fall  by  them.  .  .  .  The  whole  of  Belimenism,  both  phrase  and 
sense,  is  useless,  most  sublime  nonsense,  inimitable  bombast,  fustian 
not  to  be  paralleled.  .  .  .  The  mystic  writers  are  one  great  anti¬ 
christ”  ( A  New  History  of  Methodism,  vol.  i.  p.  54).  ITe  brings 
out  clearly,  however,  the  close  affinities  between  Methodism  and 
Mysticism. 


236  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


contemptible.  But  the  man  who  wrote  these 
lines  was  no  egoist.  He  wrote  also — 

“  0  that  the  world  might  taste  and  see 
The  riches  of  His  grace ! 

The  arms  of  love  that  compass  me 
Would  all  mankind  embrace.” 

And  a  little  later — 

“  ’  Tis  all  my  business  here  below 
To  cry,  ‘  Behold  the  Lamb  !  ’  ” 

The  ideal  expressed  in  this  and  in  many  another 
hymn  was  exemplified  by  the  Methodists  in  general. 
And  if  it  be  replied  that  the  verse  criticised  was 
written  to  inculcate  this  egoistic  attitude  in  others, 
that  also  is  to  miss  the  point.  The  contrast  is  not 
between  the  salvation  of  self  and  the  salvation  of 
others,  but,  as  is  clear  from  the  hymn  as  a  whole, 
between  the  attainment  of  salvation  and  all  the 
good  which  earth  has  to  offer.  It  is  Charles  Wesley’s 
somewhat  extravagant  way  of  putting  the  old 
question,  “  What  shall  it  profit  a  man  if  he  gain 
the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  ”  It  was 
therefore  natural  that  the  Methodist  preachers 
should  press  for  immediate  decision.  Not  infre¬ 
quently  the  preacher  would  drive  home  his  appeals 
by  anecdotes,  illustrating  the  danger  of  delay,  or 
the  advantage  of  a  prompt  decision,  which  had 
reversed  the  fate  of  those  who  had  repented  just 
in  time.  The  descriptions  of  future  bliss  or  woe 
were  very  realistic  in  character,  and  although  the 
lurid  type  of  sermon  has  now  largely  died  out,  it 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


237 


is  not  so  long  since  a  fairly  large  proportion  of  the 
Sunday  night  sermons  were  of  this  order.  They 
were  based  on  such  texts  as  :  “  Cut  it  down,  why 
cumbereth  it  the  ground  ?  ”  “  These  shall  go  away 

into  everlasting  punishment.”  “  Turn  ye,  turn  ye 
from  your  evil  ways,  for  why  will  ye  die,  0  house 
of  Israel  ?  ”  “  For  the  great  day  of  His  wrath  is 

come,  and  who  shall  be  able  to  stand  ?  ”  Rut  the 
preachers  knew  also  how  to  sound  the  winning  note  ; 
and  it  would  be  unjust  to  suggest  that  their  appeals 
to  the  unconverted  were  addressed  simply  to  their 
fears.  At  the  same  time  it  is  true  that  through  a 
long  part  of  its  history,  while  Methodism  has  been 
jealous  of  any  deviation  from  strict  orthodoxy,  it 
has  been  nervously  alert  to  any  coquetting  with  uni- 
versalism  or  conditional  immortality.  The  situation 
is  altering  even  here,  and  for  a  long  while  past  the 
coarse  literalism,  which  characterised  the  older 
representation  of  hell,  has  been  tacitly  or  explicitly 
abandoned. 

That  the  preaching  of  the  early  Methodist 
preachers  was  accompanied  by  abnormal  physical 
manifestations,  which  were  repeated  in  connexion 
with  the  American  camp  meetings  1  and  the  early 
history  of  Primitive  Methodism,  will  occasion  no 
surprise  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  history 
of  revivals.  It  is  only  within  recent  years  that 

1  The  Autobiography  of  Peter  Cartwright ,  a  Methodist  preacher 
in  the  backwoods  of  America,  gives  a  most  graphic  and  racy  picture 
of  the  life  of  a  “  circuit  rider,”  and  especially  of  the  camp  meetings. 
No  reader  will  ever  forget  the  phenomena  known  as  “  the  jerks.” 


238  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


the  subject  lias  been  attacked  in  a  scientific  manner, 
and  the  origin  and  interrelation  of  the  phenomena 
are  still  obscure.  They  are  not,  indeed,  confined  to 
the  religion  of  Israel  and  Christianity,  but  parallels 
are  to  be  found  among  many  peoples  and  in  widely 
separated  religions.  The  early  history  of  Hebrew 
prophecy,  the  spiritual  gifts  in  the  Primitive 
Church  from  Pentecost  onwards,  the  physical 
convulsions  that  attended  certain  religious  move¬ 
ments  in  the  Mediaeval  Church,  the  conditions 
created  by  the  Welsh  Revival,  had  their  counter¬ 
part  in  Methodism.  In  all  cases  the  law  seems  to 
be  that  the  new  burst  of  life  is  accompanied  by 
these  abnormal  manifestations,  and  that  as  the 
wild  tumult  subsides  into  a  more  peaceful  and 
even  flow  they  tend  gradually  to  die  out.  It  does 
not  follow  that  the  initial  impulse  is  exhausted 
or  that  the  enthusiasm  and  passion  have  vanished. 
Sometimes  this  may  be  the  case,  but  the  later  stage 
ought  to  retain  all  the  heat  of  the  earlier,  even  when 
the  leaping  flame  has  sunk  to  a  flicker,  and  the 
thronging  sparks  have  ceased  to  mount  on  high. 
But  a  whole  series  of  phenomena,  which  in  the  last 
generation  were  indiscriminately  labelled  as  supersti¬ 
tion  by  a  thin  and  impatient  materialism,  are  now 
being  studied  with  sympathy  ;  and  the  early  records 
of  the  various  branches  of  Methodism  are  full  of 
rich  material  for  the  student  of  religious  psychology. 
It  was  quite  common  for  many  hearers  to  be  physi¬ 
cally  struck  down  to  the  ground.  Several  would 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


239 


lapse  into  a  state  of  unconsciousness  or  go  into 
trances.  For  the  latter  the  expressive  term  “to  go 
into  vision”  was  sometimes  used.  Clairvoyance  and 
clairaudience  were  not  unexampled.  There  were 
also  remarkable  cases  of  prevision  and  prediction. 
Abnormal  physical  strength,  such  as  is  familiar  in 
cases  of  mental  pathology,  also  occurred,  as  when 
a  weak,  crippled  woman  lifted  a  heavy  stove,  which 
two  men  could  barely  lift,  and  carried  it  round  the 
village  chapel.  It  is  not  remarkable  that  the  early 
Methodists,  to  whom  modern  psychology  was  un¬ 
known,  should  see  a  plain  token  of  God’s  working 
in  such  things  as  these.  That  the  meetings  were 
often  noisy  is  only  what  might  have  been  antici¬ 
pated.  Methodism  was  simply  conforming  to 
type  in  this  as  in  other  respects.  This  also  dies 
down  in  the  second  or  third  generation  ;  it  is  dead 
in  the  fourth,  and  supercilious  descendants,  in  their 
ignorance  of  spiritual  phenomena,  sometimes  look 
back  with  contempt  or  disgust  on  the  pit  from 
which  they  have  been  digged.  The  sympathetic 
student  will  recognise  that  this  attitude  is  just 
as  unreasonable  as  that  of  those  who  sigh  for  a 
return  of  the  earlier  days,  who  seek  the  living 
among  the  dead,  and  attempt  to  galvanise  a  vanished 
past  into  an  artificial  life. 

Since  the  time  when  it  was  a  nine  days’  wonder 
that  so  steady  a  yokel  as  Saul  should  have  been 
touched  by  the  Divine  fire  and  be  found  among 
the  prophets,  it  has  been  the  eccentricities  of 


240  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


revivalists  which  have  caught  the  attention  of  the 
world.  It  is  not  strange  that  much  should  have 
been  made  by  the  critics  of  Methodism  of  its 
enthusiastic  and  emotional  character.  No  one 
who  knew  Methodism  from  the  inside  could  imagine 
that  it  was  adequately  summed  up  in  the  phrase 
“  emotional  religion.”  Nor  yet,  to  take  another 
criticism  urged  from  more  quarters  than  one,  that 
it  was  admirable  for  bringing  in  the  unconverted, 
but  could  do  little  for  them  when  it  had  gathered 
them  into  its  fold.  It  drilled  its  converts  by  a 
severe  moral  discipline ;  it  provided  them,  not  only 
with  the  exposition  of  the  Word  from  the  pulpit, 
but  with  opportunities  of  spiritual  fellowship  and 
mutual  edification  in  its  class  meetings  and  band 
meetings.  It  laid  upon  them  the  duty  of  witness¬ 
ing  for  Christ  before  the  world,  and  especially, 
where  it  was  most  difficult  to  do  so,  among  their 
daily  associates.  It  taught  them  their  responsi¬ 
bility  for  the  souls  of  their  fellows,  whom  they 
were,  if  possible,  to  pluck  as  brands  from  the 
burning.  Yet  I  am  not  sure  whether  Methodists 
have  not  sometimes  shown  themselves  too  careful 
to  answer  the  criticism  that  Methodism  is  an 
emotional  religion.  I,  at  least,  can  understand 
no  religion  which  is  not  at  the  core  of  it  emotional. 
It  goes  without  saying  that  no  religion  can  be 
acceptable  to  us  without  an  intellectual  element, 
that  it  must  capture  the  will  and  control  the 
conduct.  But  unless  the  deepest  springs  of  feeling 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


241 


within  the  being  are  touched,  unless  there  is  the 
thrill  of  contact  between  God  and  the  human  soul, 
no  matter  how  elaborate  the  ritual,  how  closely 
reasoned  the  theology,  how  conformable  to  the 
strictest  morality  the  conduct,  the  supreme  satis¬ 
faction  of  the  religious  instinct  is  lost.1  The 
hymns  which  I  have  quoted  are  testimony  enough 
that,  whatever  the  defects  of  Methodism  may  be, 
at  least  it  has  known  what  religion  is. 

One  of  the  most  characteristic  of  Methodist 
doctrines  still  remains  to  be  mentioned.  This  was 
the  doctrine  of  entire  sanctification.  With  all 
the  emphasis  that  Wesley  placed  on  conversion, 
he  did  not  look  on  salvation  as  escape  from  the 
consequences  of  sin.  It  really  consisted  in  escape 
from  sin  itself.  But  even  if  it  were  granted 
theoretically  that  sanctification  might  coincide 
with  justification,  Wesley  held  that  as  a  matter  of 
fact  it  rarely  if  ever  did  so.2  Hence  sanctification 
was  often  spoken  of  as  “  the  second  blessing.” 
But,  like  justification,  it  must  be  received  by  faith 
and  would  normally  be  instantaneous.  There  was 
the  same  predilection  here  as  with  conversion  for 
a  sharp,  clear-cut  experience.  The  essence  of 
Christian  perfection  was  found  in  perfect  love  ; 
the  supernatural  action  of  God’s  Spirit,  answering 
the  urgent  desire  and  faith  of  the  believer,  cleansed 

1 1  may  refer  for  a  fuller  development  of  this  to  what  I  have 
said  in  Christianity  :  its  Nature  and  its  Truth,  chap.  i. 

2  See  the  sermons  On  Sin  in  Believers  and  The  Repentance  of 
Believers. 

16 


242  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


him  instantaneously  from  all  the  roots  of  bitterness 
and  sin  which  conversion  had  left  in  his  nature. 
Whatever  criticisms  may  be  urged  against  the 
doctrine,  and  whatever  cautions  experience  may 
dictate  as  to  its  presentation,  it  is  undeniable  that 
the  New  Testament  says  much  as  to  the  duties 
and  privileges  of  believers,  which  a  less  heroic 
temper  has  either  ignored  or  tacitly  judged  as  too 
idealistic  for  everyday  life.  The  tendency,  as 
time  has  gone  on,  has  probably  been  towards  a 
considerable  modification  of  the  doctrine.  This 
tendency  has  been  to  some  extent  checked  by 
“  higher  life  ”  movements,  but  the  conception  of 
sanctification  as  a  process  is  probably  far  more 
widely  held  and  more  congenial  than  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  conversion  as  a  process.  It  is  certainly 
to  be  wished  that  the  elements  of  permanent  value 
in  the  older  presentation  of  the  subject  should  regain 
prominence  in  the  Methodist  message,  and  that 
the  ethical  implicates  of  the  doctrine  should  be 
more  thoroughly  worked  out. 

We  must  now  turn  to  the  organisation.  It  is 
more  difficult  to  speak  of  this  in  terms  which  will 
apply  generally  to  all  sections  of  Methodists  than 
in  the  case  of  doctrine.  Theology  is  practically 
the  same  for  all  branches  of  Methodism";  the  usual 
standards  are  the  four  volumes  of  Wesley’s  Sermons 
and  his  Notes  on  the  New  Testament.  But  the 
constitution  and  government  of  the  Church  has 
occasioned  the  most  serious  division  within  the 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


243 


parent  body  itself,  and  the  separate  denominations 
diverge  here  somewhat  widely.  It  is  difficult 
to  secure  exact  accuracy  in  a  brief  account,  inas¬ 
much  as  statements  which  would  be  broadly  true 
of  Methodists  as  a  whole  would  in  many  cases  need 
to  be  qualified  by  reference  to  exceptions.  Such 
a  broad  statement  is  all  that  can  here  be  attempted. 
It  was  Wesley’s  desire  as  a  loyal  presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England  to  keep  his  movement  in  con¬ 
nexion  with  the  Established  Church.  It  was  not 
his  aim  to  create  a  Church,  but  a  collection  of 
societies  within  the  Church  of  England.  The 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  was  administered 
to  the  members  of  the  societies  by  ordained  clergy¬ 
men,  of  whom  there  were  several  associated  with 
the  Wesleys.  Ministerial  status  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  term  was  not  accorded  to  the  preachers 
of  the  Connexion.  The  Connexion,  however,  was 
independent  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
management  of  its  affairs.  Wesley  kept  the 
government  in  his  own  hands,  but  united  with 
himself  a  Conference  of  Methodist  preachers.  The 
logical  issue  of  his  movement  was  inevitably  to 
detach  his  Connexion  from  the  Anglican  Church. 
His  own  exclusive  High  Anglicanism  had  been  so 
modified  by  the  developments  through  which  he 
passed,  that,  reluctant  though  he  was  to  do  any¬ 
thing  which  would  create  a  breach,  it  was  not 
possible  for  him  to  avoid  it.  The  reading  of  King’s 
Inquiry  into  the  Constitution ,  Discipline ,  Unity , 


244 


EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


and  Worship  of  the  Catholic  Church  had  convinced 
him  that  since  presbyters  and  bishops  were  origin¬ 
ally  identical,  he  was  himself  a  Scriptural  bishop, 
hence  he  ordained  Dr.  Coke  as  an  American  super¬ 
intendent.  Many  years  before  he  had  rejected 
the  doctrine  of  apostolic  succession  ;  in  a  letter 
to  his  brother  Charles,  who  was  greatly  distressed 
by  the  ordination  of  Coke,  he  says:  “The  unin¬ 
terrupted  succession  I  know  to  be  a  fable  which 
no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove.” 1  Still  holding 
the  value  of  the  Sacraments,  he  could  no  longer 
attach  to  them  the  vital  importance  he  had  given 
them  in  his  High  Anglican  period.  Sacraments 
could  not  secure  salvation ;  regeneration  did  not 
come  through  baptism.  The  full  logic  of  his  own 
position  was  not  worked  out  by  Wesley  himself, 
and  some  of  the  offshoots  have  worked  it  out 
more  radically  than  the  parent  body.  Even  in  his 
lifetime  Wesley  ordained  a  number  of  his  preachers 
to  administer  the  Sacraments  in  Scotland  and  on 
the  mission  stations  in  America.  Unwilling  to 
separate  from  the  Church  of  England  or  to  recognise 
with  his  brother  the  truth  of  Lord  Mansfield’s 
dictum,  “  Ordination  is  separation,”  he  foresaw 
that  the  rupture  would  come  and  made  provision 
for  it.  The  force  of  circumstances  soon  after 
Wesley’s  death  necessitated  that  the  Methodist 
preachers,  who  were  nearly  all  unordained  laymen 
from  the  Anglican  point  of  view,  should  administer 
1  Tyerman,  loc.  cii.  vol.  iii.  p.  445. 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


245 


the  Sacraments  if  the  societies  were  not  to  be 
deprived  of  them  altogether.  The  status  of  fully 
ordained  ministers,  possessing  valid  orders,  had 
therefore  to  be  claimed  for  them.  To  them  minis¬ 
terial  prerogatives  were  reserved  both  in  govern¬ 
ment  and  in  the  administration  of  the  Sacraments. 
The  process  has  been  carried  in  a  more  radical 
direction  by  some  of  the  junior  denominations,  in 
which  much  less  ecclesiastical  authority  is  granted 
to  the  ministers  and  in  which  laymen  are  allowed 
to  administer  the  Sacraments.  Probably  both 
systems  work  quite  satisfactorily  on  the  whole ; 
but  there  is  a  real  difference  of  principle  which 
constitutes  one  of  the  most  serious  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  any  scheme  for  union  with  the  mother 
Church.  At  the  same  time  great  advances  have 
been  made  in  a  democratic  direction  by  the  latter, 
and  a  much  larger  place  has  been  given  to  laymen 
in  the  Conference. 

The  government  of  the  Church,  speaking  broadly, 
conforms  to  the  Presbyterian  type.  It  is  true 
that  in  some  very  important  points  the  comparison 
would  be  misleading,  as  Dr.  Rigg  has  shown  in 
his  work  on  Church  Organisation.  But  the  series 
of  courts  culminating  in  the  Conference  presents  a 
marked  similarity  to  Presbyterianism.  A  number 
of  individual  societies  are  commonly  grouped  in  a 
circuit  of  which  there  is  a  superintendent  minister 
who  may  have  one  or  more  colleagues.  A  number 
of  circuits  are  grouped  in  a  district.  Each  district 


24G  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


holds  a  yearly  Synod  before  Conference.  The  Con- 
ference  is  the  supreme  court  of  the  denomina¬ 
tion.  On  other  points  of  the  elaborate  organisation, 
quarterly  meetings,  leaders’  meetings,  circuit,  dis¬ 
trict,  and  conferential  committees,  I  must  not  linger ; 
nor  on  the  detailed  differences  between  the  various 
denominations  in  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline. 

The  class  meeting  was  one  of  the  most  distinctive 
institutions  of  Methodism.  The  members  were 
grouped  in  classes.  They  met  weekly  and  con¬ 
tributed  their  class  money,  a  penny  a  week  and  a 
shilling  a  quarter  being  the  minimum  for  those  who 
could  afford  it,  towards  the  expenses  of  the  circuit. 
They  were  entrusted  to  a  leader  who  met  them 
every  week  for  a  devotional  gathering.  The  most 
characteristic  feature  of  these  meetings  was  that 
each  member  was  supposed  to  narrate  his  ex¬ 
perience.  The  early  converts  were  frequently 
ignorant  of  the  very  rudiments  of  religion,  morality, 
and  theology,  and  the  leader  was  expected  to  be  a 
spiritual  director  to  all  the  members  entrusted  to 
his  care.  To  call  the  class  meeting  the  Methodist 
Confessional,  a  term  which  has  sometimes  been 
applied  to  it,  would  be  very  misleading.  No  attempt 
was  made  to  secure  any  exhaustive  statement  of 
the  sins  and  failings  of  the  members.  What  they 
communicated  was  entirely  spontaneous.  No  ab¬ 
solution  -was  given  and  no  secrecy  was  observed. 
What  each  member  had  to  say  was  said  to  all  the 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


247 


other  members  as  well  as  to  the  leader.  After 
a  member  had  given  his  experience,  the  leader 
gave  such  reply  as  in  his  discretion  he  deemed 
desirable.  Once  a  quarter  the  minister  met  the 
classes  to  renew  the  tickets  of  membership.  It  is 
unquestionable  that  the  class  meeting  in  this  form 
served  a  most  useful  purpose.  It  secured  that 
every  week  a  small  band  of  like-minded  Christians 
should  enjoy  opportunities  of  spiritual  fellowship, 
of  mutual  counsel  and  encouragement.  The  leader, 
from  his  intimate  knowledge  of  the  members  in  his 
own  class,  was  able  to  give  information  and  guidance 
as  to  the  desirabliity  of  discipline  in  any  particular 
case  and  the  form  which  it  should  assume.  It 
was  not,  however,  without  its  drawbacks  and, 
perhaps  one  might  even  say,  perils.  The  more 
thoroughly  the  idea  was  carried  out,  the  more 
it  was  likely  to  lead  to  introspection,  which  might 
easily  become  morbid.  At  the  same  time  this  was 
not  the  danger  which  made  itself  felt  in  the  actual 
working  of  the  class  meeting.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  the  class  leader  was  like  a  spiritual 
physician  taking  the  religious  temperature  of  his 
members  with  a  clinical  thermometer.  The  danger 
was  rather  that  the  experiences  should  be  far  too 
general,  made  up  of  religious  commonplaces,  clothed 
too  often  in  stereotyped  phraseology,  and  varying 
very  little  from  week  to  week.  With  every  dis¬ 
count,  however,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  old- 
fashioned  class  meeting  did  a  valuable  work,  and 


248  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


probably  lias  a  future  still  before  it.  Many  wise 
and  experienced  Methodists  would  deprecate  any 
tampering  with  it.  It  is,  however,  uncongenial 
to  a  large  and  growing  multitude  of  Methodists. 
They  are  less  and  less  inclined  to  say  with  the 
Psalmist,  “  Come,  and  hear,  all  ye  that  fear  God, 
and  I  will  declare  what  He  hath  done  for  my  soul.5’ 
The  reserve  about  their  most  sacred  experiences, 
their  hopes  and  fears,  their  trials  and  temptations, 
their  slips  and  their  triumphs,  makes  it  impossible 
for  them  to  speak  freely  on  those  things  about  which 
they  feel  most  deeply,  and  they  dislike  the  un¬ 
reality  involved  in  giving  as  their  experiences  what 
might  suit  any  other  member  almost  as  well.  It  is 
therefore  thought  by  many  to  be  desirable  that  the 
transformation  of  the  class  meeting  into  a  gather¬ 
ing  for  the  devotional  study  of  the  Bible  and  other 
religious  subjects  should  be  promoted  wherever 
the  members  desire  it.  But  occasionally  it  would 
be  well  in  these  cases  that  an  experience  meeting 
should  be  held  in  order  that  the  good  in  such  meet¬ 
ings  might  be  retained  without  the  drawbacks  in¬ 
evitable  in  a  weekly  meeting.  The  vital  thing 
is  that,  whatever  form  it  assumes,  it  should  pro¬ 
vide  opportunity  for  the  communion  of  saints,  and 
check  aberrations  of  individuals,  which  might  easily 
receive  in  isolation  an  excessive  development. 

On  other  types  of  fellowship  and  experience 
meetings,  such  as  the  band  meeting,  the  prayer 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


249 


meeting,  or  the  love-feast,  I  must  not  linger.  But 
before  I  leave  this  aspect  of  the  subject  it  is  well 
to  point  out  that  they  must  be  taken  into  account 
in  any  judgment  of  Methodist  worship.  The  criti¬ 
cism  is  sometimes  made  that  the  Free  Churches 
are  at  a  disadvantage  as  compared  with  Churches 
which  use  a  form  of  common  prayer,  in  that  they 
give  the  people  too  slight  a  share  in  the  service. 
This  has  a  measure  of  truth  when  urged  against 
the  public  services  of  Methodism,  though  it  must 
be  remembered  that  many  Wesleyan  Churches 
use  the  Anglican  Liturgy  in  a  modified  form  in 
their  morning  services.  But  no  Methodist  would 
admit  that  the  limitation  to  the  public  services 
was  justifiable  as  a  basis  of  criticism.  When 
Methodism  is  judged  as  a  whole  it  is  certainly 
the  case  that  its  members  receive  a  liberal  share 
in  the  services.  And  the  training  which  has  been 
given  in  the  art  of  easy  and  correct  expression  in 
public  speech  has  been  of  the  utmost  value,  not 
only  in  the  service  of  the  Church  but  also  of  the 
State.  The  novice  who  manages  to  put  together 
half  a  dozen  sentences  in  the  class  meeting  or 
the  prayer  meeting  moves  on  by  easy  gradations, 
gaining  confidence  with  practice,  until  he  takes 
the  first  steps  towards  the  position  of  an  accredited 
local  preacher,  from  which  he  may  pass  into  the 
ministry  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  term.  Or, 
if  he  does  not  devote  his  life  to  the  ministry,  he  may 
exercise  his  gifts  in  municipal  or  political  affairs. 


250  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Inasmuch  as  Methodists  for  the  most  part  dislike 
read  sermons,  and  prefer  that  the  preacher  shall  be 
as  free  as  possible  from  his  manuscript,  it  has  been 
a  great  advantage  that  the  system  has  supplied 
so  admirable  a  training  in  extempore  speech,  and 
also  given  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  a  man’s  quali¬ 
fications  for  promotion  to  larger  service. 

•  Methodism,  then,  may  claim  to  be  evangelical 
in  the  senge  that  it  is  non-legalist  and  non-sacra¬ 
ment  arian.  It  is  true  that  it  has  generally  been 
vehemently  opposed  to  Antinomianism,  and  in  its 
recoil  from  it  has  not  always  avoided  an  unduly 
legalistic  conception  of  the  Christian  life.  Yet  it 
has  magnified  the  grace  of  God  and  its  correlative 
doctrine  of  salvation  not  by  works  but  by  faith, 
resting  not  on  human  merit  but  the  merit  of  Christ. 
An  honoured  place  has  commonly  been  accorded 
to  the  Sacraments,  and  the  restriction  of  the  power 
to  administer  the  Eucharist  to  the  ordained  minister 
has  given  some  colour  where  this  obtains  to  the 
charge  of  sacerdotalism.  But  Methodism  is  not 
sacerdotalist  if  by  this  is  intended  that  the  minister 
is  a  priest  who  offers  a  sacrifice  in  the  Eucharist. 
And  a  Church  which  denies  baptismal  regeneration, 
and  asserts  that  conversion  is  indispensable  to 
salvation,  and  that  sanctification  comes  through 
faith  and  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  cannot  properly  be  described  as  sacrament- 
arian.  The  great  Catholic  doctrines  are  firmly 
held,  but  with  equal  firmness  those  which  are  more 


THE  METHODIST  CHURCHES 


251 


specifically  evangelical.  Methodism  affirms  the 
boundless  love  of  God  in  Christ,  the  universal 
sweep  of  His  redemption.  It  offers  the  Gospel 
call  to  every  man,  and  urges  him  to  accept  it  with¬ 
out  delay.  It  puts  the  responsibility  of  decision 
upon  the  individual,  assures  him  that  his  will  is 
free  and  that  his  choice  is  fettered  by  no  irreversible 
decree  which  has  determined  his  fate  irrespective 
of  his  own  resolve  or  action.  Repentance,  which 
is  the  sorrow  for  sin  and  the  resolute  turning  from 
it,  and  faith,  which  is  the  self-renouncing  trust  in 
which  the  soul  casts  itself  on  Christ  for  salvation 
— these,  it  proclaims,  are  the  only  conditions  of 
salvation.  It  bids  him  never  rest  content  without 
the  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  his  sonship.  It  assures 
him  that  sin  is  no  hateful  necessity  of  his  earthly 
condition,  that  his  complete  sanctification  is  ob¬ 
tainable  in  this  life.  But  it  utters  also  the  stern 
note  of  warning  in  that  it  makes  this  life  a  proba¬ 
tion  charged  with  infinite  issues  and  fixing  his 
eternal  destiny.  It  is  other-worldly  in  the  sense 
that  in  its  judgment  the  temporal  sinks  into  in¬ 
significance  in  comparison  with  the  eternal.  And 
yet  it  does  not  make  the  bliss  of  heaven  an  excuse 
for  the  misery  of  earth,  nor  drug  with  religious 
anaesthetics  its  indignation  at  injustice  or  its 
sensitiveness  to  human  pain.  It  has  not  identified 
religion  with  philanthropy,  but  it  has  been  eminent 
for  its  humanitarian  temper  and  abounding  good 
works.  It  has  sought,  not  always  perhaps  with 


252  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


success,  to  combine  inner  illumination  with  objective 
authority.  Intensely  individualistic,  it  has  been 
also  intensely  social.  It  has  linked  its  members 
into  a  close  brotherhood,  sought  to  press  all  into  its 
great  mission  and  make  them  contribute  to  mutual 
edification.  It  has  learnt  much  from  other  branches 
of  the  Church,  and  many  of  its  most  precious  truths 
it  holds  in  common  with  them.  But  I  think  it 
will  be  granted  not  only  that  it  has  accomplished 
by  the  grace  of  God  a  stupendous  task,  but  that 
it  has  created  its  own  typical  experience,  developed 
its  characteristic  institutions,  and  formulated  its 
own  presentation  of  Christian  theology.  Its  wisest 
friends  will  claim  no  more  for  it  than  that  it  is  a 
legitimate  form  of  Christianity,  and  has  had  through¬ 
out  its  history  manifest  and  abundant  tokens  of  the 
Divine  approval.  Justice  will  be  content  with  no 
less.  And  while  the  Methodist  rejoices  to  recognise 
that  other  branches  of  the  Church  have  an  equal 
legitimacy  with  his  own,  he  believes  that  in  that  final 
synthesis  which  is  larger  than  all  and  will  embrace 
all,  some  elements,  and  those  not  the  least  precious, 
will  form  the  contribution  of  Methodism. 


INDEX 


Act  of  Uniformity,  134. 

Acts,  Book  of,  9. 

Adult  schools,  205. 

Ainsworth,  Henry,  93,  98. 
Apostles,  16. 

Apostolic  succession,  28. 
Apostolical  Narration,  128. 
American  Puritans,  126. 
Amsterdam,  97. 

Anabaptists,  139,  142,  147, 

199. 

Ancient  Church,  the,  140. 
Andrewes,  Lancelot,  101. 
Arminianism,  226. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  232. 

Articles,  218. 

Augsburg  Confession,  25. 
Authority,  8. 

Baptism,  104,  138. 

Baptist  churches,  133  ff. 

,,  missions,  161. 

Barbadoes,  194,  199. 

Barclay,  Robert,  185,  191. 
Barnabas,  16. 

Barrow,  Henry,  86. 

Baxter,  Richard,  172. 

Bible,  108. 

Bogue,  Dr.,  121. 

Boliler,  Peter,  216. 

Borgeaud,  M.,  126. 

3$3 


Borromeo,  Chas.,  42. 

Bright,  Dr.,  8,  14,  30. 

Browne,  Robert,  88,  137. 
Brownists,  91. 

Buckingham,  Duchess  of,  225, 
232. 

Bunyan,  John,  149. 

Burrough,  Edward,  184. 
Busher,  Leonard,  146,  152, 160. 

Calvin,  3,  42. 

Calvinism,  58. 

Calvinistic  Baptists,  142. 
Cambridge  Platonists,  199. 
Camp  meetings,  237. 

Carey,  W.,  158,  160. 

Carolina,  191. 

Cartwright,  Peter,  237. 

„  Thos.,  89,  97. 
Catherine,  St.,  178. 

Catholic,  23. 

Chamberlen,  Peter,  153. 
Charismata,  12. 

Chidley,  Catherine,  151. 
Children  of  Light,  188. 

Church,  3,  4,  109,  110. 

„  courts,  73. 

Clarke,  W.  N.,  118. 

Class  meeting,  246. 

Clement,  Epistle  of,  26,  29, 
30. 


254  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Coke,  Dr.,  244. 

Confessions,  115. 
Congregationalism,  64,  83  fF. 
Corinth,  Church  at,  15. 

Creeds,  115, 

Cromwell,  42,  113,  154. 

Dale,  Dr.,  82,  92,  107,  111, 

112. 

Defence  of  the  Apology ,  45. 
Didache,  18,  19,  20. 

Eayrs,  Mr.,  222. 

Ecce  Homo,  99. 

Ecclesia,  6. 

Ecclesiastical  Polity,  47. 
Edmundson,  Wm,,  194. 

Elders,  66. 

Ephesians,  Epistle  to,  20. 
Episcopos,  19. 

Eucharistic  prayer,  17,  18. 
Evangelical  Revival,  107,  119. 

„  tradition,  39,  40. 

Fall  of  Man,  201. 

Fell,  Margaret,  186. 

Firth,  Prof.,  154. 

Fisher,  Samuel,  172. 

Fitz,  Richard,  88. 

Foreign  Baptists,  164-5. 

Fox,  George,  182, 183, 188, 191. 
Francis,  St.,  178. 

Free  Churches,  249. 

French  Reformers,  48. 

„  Revolution,  182. 

Fruit  of  the  Spirit,  174. 

Fuller,  Andrew,  158. 

Gardiner,  Prof.,  151. 

General  Baptists,  141,  149, 157. 


Gifts,  12,  14. 

Gnosis,  177. 

Gore,  Dr.,  207. 

Gould,  Principal,  159. 
Greenfield,  Edward,  232. 
Greenwood,  John,  93. 

Harnack,  173. 

Hastings,  Dr.,  230. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  25. 

Helwys,  Thos.,  140,  141. 
Historic  Episcopate,  21. 
Hobhouse,  W.,  125. 

Holy  Spirit,  13,  33,  117,  174. 
Hooker,  Bishop,  47,  91,  109. 
Hort,  Dr.,  6,  7,  11,  19,  20,  22. 
Huntingdon,  Countess  of,  225. 

Ignatius,  29. 

Independents,  113. 

Jacob,  Henry,  141. 

James,  the  Lord’s  brother,  10. 
Jerusalem  Conference,  10. 
Jewel,  45. 

Joan  of  Kent,  142. 

John  the  Scot,  178. 

Johnson,  Francis,  97. 

Jones,  Dr.  Rufus,  175,  176. 
Justification,  43. 

Kiffen,  W.,  147. 

King’s  Inquiry ,  243. 

Knox,  42. 

Leyden,  98. 

Light  of  the  Spirit,  201. 
Lindsay’s  History  of  the  Be- 
formation ,  23. 

Lock,  Dr.  W.,  84. 


INDEX 


255 


Lollardry,  134, 178. 

London  Mission,  121. 

Long  Confession ,  145,  153. 
Loyola,  42. 

Luther,  23,  41,  179. 

Mackennal,  Dr.,  87,  100,  110, 
125. 

Mansfield,  Lord,  244. 
Massachusetts,  110,  112. 
Methodist  churches,  211  ff. 

„  message,  218. 

„  statistics,  222, 
Middelburg,  98. 

Missionary  work,  120,  193. 
Moberly,  Dr.,  24. 

Montanists,  177. 

Moravians,  51. 

Moulton,  158. 

Munster,  199. 

Mysticism,  188,  234. 

National  religion,  63. 

Nayler,  James,  185,  186. 

New  Covenant,  118. 

Newgate  Street  Church,  141. 
Noble,  Dr.,  120,  123,  126. 

Particular  Baptists,  141,  146, 

157. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  19. 

Paul,  St.,  13. 

Penington,  Isaac,  197,  199, 

202. 

Penn,  Wm.,  190. 

Pentecost,  9,  84. 

Person  of  Christ,  197. 

Peter,  Epistle  of,  6. 

Peter’s  confession,  4,  5. 

Philip,  Evangelist,  16. 


Pilgrim  Fathers,  112. 
Prayer,  62. 

Presbvterian  churches,  58  ff. 
Presbyters,  66. 

Primitive  Methodism,  237. 
Protestant,  23,  30,  31. 
Puritanism,  60. 

Quakers,  172,  196  ff. 

Ranters,  184. 

Real  Presence,  107. 
Reformation,  136,  179. 
Reformed  Confessions,  180. 
Religion’ s' Peace,  146. 
Restoration,  the,  122. 

Rhode  Island,  155. 

Rigg,  Dr.,  219,  223,  245. 
Robinson,  John,  95,  116. 
Romans,  Epistle  to,  13. 
Rutherford,  Mark,  119. 

Sabatier,  A.,  180. 
Sacraments,  103,  244. 
Samaritans,  10. 
Sanctification,  241. 

Savoy  Declaration,  103,  106. 
Scott,  A.  J.,  96,  107,  116. 
Scripture  translation,  135. 
Separatists,  94. 

Silas,  16. 

Simon,  Dr.,  211,  222. 

Smyth,  John,  140,  144,  151. 
Society  of  Friends,  171. 
South  Galatia,  17. 

Spilsbury,  142,  144. 

State  and  Church,  114. 
Sustentation  Fund,  71. 
Synod,  72. 


256  EVANGELICAL  CHRISTIANITY 


Tasker,  Dr.,  230. 

Taylor,  Dan,  149. 

Timotliy,  20. 

Titus,  20. 

Tractarians,  215. 
Transubstantiation,  215. 
Tyerman,  219,  244. 

United  Free  Church,  66. 

Walker,  Dr.  Willaston,  103, 
111,  115,  123. 


Wesley,  Charles,  214. 

„  John,  50,  157,  214  ff. 
Wesleyan  Conference,  221. 
Wesley’s  Sermons ,  242. 
Westminster  Confession,  58. 
Whitefield,  220. 

Whittier,  193. 

Wiclif,  87. 

Williams,  Roger,  150,  155. 
Witness  of  the  Spirit,  229. 
Workman,  Dr.,  230,  234. 

Xavier,  42. 


Printed  by  Morrison  &  Gibb  Limited,  Edinburgh 


Date  Due 


i 


* 

<  ?  c 


»■ 


*  ■/ 


-ft*  /  • « 


v^> 


